THE 

CONSTITUTIONAL 

HISTORY     OF    ENGLAND 

FROM    THE    ACCESSION    OF    HENRY    VII.    TO 
THE    DEATH    OF    GEORGE    II. 

VOLUME    II. 


THE 


CONSTITUTIONAL 

HISTORY    OF    ENGLAND 


FROM  THE  ACCESSION  OF  HENRY  VH.  TO 
THE  DEATH  OF  GEORGE  II. 


LIBRARY  OF 
RICHMOND  Iff.  SMITH 


BY  HENRY  HALLAM,   LL.D.,   F.R.A.S., 

FOREIGN  ASSOCIATE   OF  THE  INSTITUTE  OF  FRANCE. 


IN  THREE  VOLUMES. 
VOLUME  II. 


NEW     YORK: 
SHELDON    AND     COMPANY. 

BOSTON: 
WILLIAM    VEAZIE. 

1862. 


>> 


RIVERSIDE,  CAMBRIDGE: 

STEREOTYPED    AND    FEINTED    BY 
H.    0.    H  OUGHT  ON. 


CONTENTS 


THE    SECOND   VOLUME. 


CHAPTER    VIII. 

FROM  THE  DISSOLUTION  OF  CHARLES'S  THIRD  PARLIAMENT  TO    THE 
MEETING  OF  THE  LONG  PARLIAMENT. 

Declaration  of  the  King  after  the  Dissolution  —  Prosecutions  of  Eliot  and 
others  for  conduct  in  Parliament  —  Of  Chambers  for  refusing  to  pay 
Customs  —  Commendable  Behavior  of  Judges  in  some  instances  —  Means 
adopted  to  raise  the  Revenue  —  Compositions  for  Knighthood  —  Forest 
Laws  —  Monopolies  —  Ship-Money — Extension  of  it  to  inland  Places  — 
Hampden's  Refusal  to  pay  —  Arguments  on  the  Case  —  Proclamations  — 
Various  arbitrary  Proceedings  —  Star-Chamber  Jurisdiction  —  Punish 
ments  inflicted  by  it  —  Cases  of  Bishop  Williams,  Prynne,  &c.  —  Laud, 
his  Character  —  Lord  Strafford  —  Correspondence  between  these  two  — 
Conduct  of  Laud  in  the  Church-Prosecution  of  Puritans  —  Favor  shown 
to  Catholics  —  Tendency  to  their  Religion  —  Expectations  entertained  by 
them  —  Mission  of  Panzani  —  Intrigue  of  Bishop  Montagu  with  him  — 
Chillingworth  —  Hales  —  Character  of  Clarendon's  Writings  — Animad 
versions  on  his  Account  of  this  Period  —  Scots  Troubles  and  Distress  of 
the  Government  —  Parliament  of  April,  1640  —  Council  of  York  —  Con 
vocation  of  Long  Parliament , Page  9 

CHAPTER    IX. 

FROM  THE  MEETING  OF  THE  LONG  PARLIAMENT  TO  THE  BEGINNING 
OF  THE  CIVIL  WAR. 

Character  of  Long  Parliament  —  Its  salutary  Measures — Triennial  Bill  — 
Other  beneficial  Laws — Observations — Impeachment  of  Strafford  — 
Discussion  of  its  Justice  —  Act  against  Dissolution  of  Parliament  without 
its  Consent  —  Innovations  meditated  in  the  Church  —  Schism  in  the 
Constitutional  Party  —  Remonstrance  of  November,  1641  —  Suspicions 
of  the  King's  Sincerity  —  Question  of  the  Militia  —  Historical  Sketch  of 


M41757 


vi  CONTENTS   OF   THE  SECOND  VOLUME. 

Military  Force  in  England  —  Encroachments  of  the  Parliament  —  Nine 
teen  Propositions  —  Discussion  of  the  respective  Claims  of  the  two  Parties 
to  Support  —  Faults  of  both Page  96 

CHAPTER  X. 

FROM   THE   BREAKING   OUT   OF   THE    CIVIL   WAR   TO   THE    RESTORATION. 

PART  I. 

Success  of  the  King  in  the  first  part  of  the  War  —  Efforts  by  the  Moderate 
Party  for  Peace  —  Affair  at  Brentford  —  Treaty  of  Oxford  —  Impeach 
ment  of  the  Queen  —  Waller's  Plot — Secession  of  some  Peers  to  the 
King's  Quarters  —  Their  Treatment  there  impolitic — The  Anti-pacific 
Party  gain  the  Ascendant  at  Westminster  —  The  Parliament  makes  a 
new  Great  Seal  —  and  takes  the  Covenant  —  Persecution  of  the  Clergy 
who  refuse  it  —  Impeachment  and  Execution  of  Laud  —  Decline  of  the 
King's  Affairs  in  1644  —  Factions  at  Oxford  —  Royalist  Lords  and  Com 
moners  summoned  to  that  City  —  Treaty  of  Uxbridge  —  Impossibility  of 
Agreement  —  The  Parliament  insist  on  unreasonable  Terms  —  Miseries 
of  the  War  —  Essex  and  Manchester  suspected  of  Lukewarmness  —  Self- 
denying  Ordinance  —  Battle  of  Naseby  —  Desperate  Condition  of  the 
King's  Affairs  —  He  throws  himself  into  the  hands  of  the  Scots  —  His 
Struggles  to  preserve  Episcopacy,  against  the  Advice  of  the  Queen  and 
others  —  Bad  Conduct  of  the  Queen  —  Publication  of  Letters  taken  at 
Naseby  —  Discovery  of  Glamorgan's  Treaty —  King  delivered  up  by  the 
Scots  —  Growth  of  the  Independents  and  Republicans  —  Opposition  to 
the  Presbyterian  Government  —  Toleration  —  intrigues  of  the  Army  with 
the  King  —  His  Person  seized  —  The  Parliament  yield  to  the  Army  — 
Mysterious  Conduct  of  Cromwell  —  Imprudent  Hopes  of  the  King  —  He 
rejects  the  Proposals  of  the  Army  —  His  Flight  from  Hampton  Court  — 
Alarming  Votes  against  him  —  Scots  Invasion  —  The  Presbyterians 
regain  the  Ascendant  —  Treaty  of  Newport  —  Gradual  Progress  of  a 
Republican  Party  —  Scheme  among  the  Officers  of  bringing  Charles  to 
Trial —  This  is  finally  determined  —  Seclusion  of  Presbyterian  Members 

—  Motives  of  some  of  the  King's  Judges  —  Question  of  his  Execution 
discussed  —  His  Character  —  Icon  Basilike' , . . .  Page  150 

PART  II. 

Abolition  of  the  Monarchy  —  and  of  the  House  of  Lords  —  Commonwealth 

—  Schemes  of  Cromwell  —  His  Conversations  with  Whitelock  —  Unpop 
ularity  of  the  Parliament  —  Their  fall  —  Little  Parliament  —  Instrument 
of  Government  —  Parliament  called  by  Cromwell  —  Dissolved  by  him  — 
Intrigues  of   the  King  and  his  Party  —  Insurrectionary  Movements   in 
1655  —  Rigorous  Measures  of  Cromwell  —  His  arbitrary  Government  — 
He  summons  another  Parliament  —  Designs  to  take  the  Crown  —  The 
Project  fails  — but  his  Authority  as  Protector  is  augmented  —  He  aims 


CONTEXTS  OF  THE  SECOND   VOLUME.  vn 

at  forming  a  new  House  of  Lords  —  His  Death  —  and  Character  —  Rich 
ard  his  Son  succeeds  him — Is  supported  by  some  prudent  Men  —  but 
opposed  by  a  Coalition —Calls  a  Parliament  —  The  Army  overthrow 
both— Long  Parliament  restored  —  Expelled  again  —  and  again  re 
stored  —  Impossibility  of  establishing  a  Republic  —  Intrigues  of  the  Roy 
alists  —  They  unite  with  the  Presbyterians  —  Conspiracy  of  1059  — 
Interference  of  Monk  — His  Dissimulation— Secluded  Members  return 
to  their  Seats  —  Difficulties  about  the  Restoration  —  New  Parliament  — 
King  restored  —  Whether  previous  Conditions  required  —  Plan  of  reviv 
ing  the  Treaty  of  Newport  inexpedient  —  Difficulty  of  framing  Condi 
tions —  Conduct  of  the  Convention  about  this  not  blamable  —  except  in 
respect  of  the  Militia  —  Conduct  of  Monk Page  224 


CHAPTER  XL 

FROM  THE  RESTORATION  OF  CHARLES  II.  TO  THE  FALL  OF  THE  CABAL 
ADMINISTRATION. 

Popular  Jov  at  the  Restoration  —  Proceedings  of  the  Convention  Parlia 
ment —  Act  of  Indemnity — Exclusion  of  the  Regicides  and  others  — 
Discussions  between  the  Houses  on  it  —  Execution  of  Regicides  —  Resti 
tution  of  Crown  and  Church  Lands — Discontent  of  the  Royalists  —  Set 
tlement  of  the  Revenue  —  Abolition  of  Military  Tenures — Excise  granted 
instead  —  Army  disbanded —  Clergy  restored  to  their  Benefices  —  Hopes 
of  the  Presbyterians  from  the  King  —  Projects  for  a  Compromise  — 
King's  Declaration  in  favor  of  it  —  Convention  Parliament  dissolved  — 
Different  Complexion  of  the  next  —  Condemnation  of  Vane  —  its  Injus 
tice  —  Acts  replacing  the  CroAvn  in  its  Prerogatives —  Corporation  Act  — 
Repeal  of  Triennial  Act  —  Star-chamber  not  restored  —  Presbyterians 
deceived  by  the  King  —  Savoy  Conference  —  Act  of  Uniformity  —  Ejec 
tion  of  Non-conformist  Clergy  —  Hopes  of  the  Catholics  —  Bias  of  the 
King  towards  them  —  Resisted  by  Clarendon  and  the  Parliament  —  Dec 
laration  for  Indulgence  —  Objected  to  by  the  Commons  —  Act  against 
Conventicles  —  Another  of  the  same  kind  —  Remarks  on  them  —  Dissat 
isfaction  increases  —  Private  Life  of  the  King—  Opposition  in  Parliament 

—  Appropriation  of  Supplies  — Commission  of  Public  Accounts  —  Decline 
of  Clarendon's  Power  —  Loss  of  the  King's  favor  —  Coalition  against  him 

—  His  Impeachment — Some  Articles  of  it  not  unfounded  —  Illegal  Im 
prisonments  —  Sale  of  Dunkirk  —  Solicitation  of  French  Money  —  His 
Faults  as  a  Minister  —  His  pusillanimous  Flight  —  and  consequent  Ban 
ishment —  Cabal  Ministry — Scheme  of  Comprehension  and  Indulgence 

—  Triple  Alliance  —  Intrigue  with  France  —  King's  Desire  to  be  absolute 

—  Secret  Treaty  of  1670  —  Its  Objects  —  Differences  between  Charles 
and  Louis  as  to  the  mode  of  its  Execution  —  Fresh  severities   against 
Dissenters  —  Dutch   War  —  Declaration  of  Indulgence  —  Opposed   by 
Parliament  —  and   withdrawn  —  Test   Act  —  Fall   of   Shaftesbury   and 
his  Colleagues Page    290 


CONTENTS   OF  THE   SECOND  VOLUME 


CHAPTER  XII. 

Earl  of  Danby's  Administration  —  Opposition  in  the  Commons — Fre 
quently  corrupt  —  Character  of  Lord  Danby  —  Connection  of  the  popu 
lar  party  with  France  —  Its  Motives  on  both  Sides  —  Doubt  as  to  their 
Acceptance  of  Money  —  Secret  Treaties  of  the  King  with  France  —  Fall 
of  Danby  —  His  Impeachment —  Questions  arising  on  it  —  His  Commit 
ment  to  the  Tower  —  Pardon  pleaded  in  Bar  —  Votes  of  Bishops  — 
Abatement  of  Impeachments  by  Dissolution  —  Popish  Plot —  Coleman's 
Letters  —  Godfrey's  Death — Injustice  of  Judges  on  the  Trials  —  Par 
liament  dissolved  —  Exclusion  of  Duke  of  York  proposed  —  Schemes  of 
Shaftesbury  and  Monmouth  —  Unsteadiness  of  the  King  —  Expedients 
to  avoid  the  Exclusion  —  Names  of  Whig  and  Tory  —  New  Council 
formed  by  Sir  William  Temple  —  Long  Prorogation  of  Parliament  — 
Petitions  and  Addresses  —  Violence  of  the  Commons  —  Oxford  Parlia 
ment  —  Impeachment  of  Commoners  for  Treason  constitutional  —  Fitz- 
harris  impeached  —  Proceedings  against  Shaftesbury  and  his  Colleagues 
—  Triumph  of  the  Court  —  Forfeiture  of  Charter  of  London  —  and  of 
other  Places  —  Projects  of  Lords  Russell  and  Sidney  —  Their  Trials  — 
High-Tory  Principles  of  the  Clergy  —  Passive  Obedience  —  Some  con 
tend  for  absolute  Power — Filmer  —  Sir  George  Mackenzie — Decree 
of  University  of  Oxford  —  Connection  with  Louis  broken  off —  King's 
Death Page  376 


THE 

CONSTITUTIONAL   HISTORY 

OF 

ENGLAND 

FROM 

HENRY    VII.    TO    GEORGE     II. 


CHAPTER    VIII. 

FROM  THE  DISSOLUTION  OF  CHARLES'S  THIRD  PARLIAMENT 
TO    THE    MEETING    OF    THE    LONG    PARLIAMENT. 

Declaration  of  the  King  after  the  Dissolution  —  Prosecutions  of  Eliot  and  others 
for  Conduct  in  Parliament  —  Of  Chambers  for  refusing  to  pay  Customs  —  Com 
mendable  Behavior  of  Judges  in  some  Instances  —  Means  adopted  to  raise  the 
Revenue  —  Compositions  for  Knighthood  —  Forest  Laws  —  Monopolies  —  Ship- 
Money —  Extension  of  it  to  inland  Places  —  Hampden's  Refusal  to  pay  — 
Arguments  on  the  Case  —  Proclamations  —  Various  arbitrary  Proceedings  — 
Star-Chamber  Jurisdiction — Punishments  inflicted  by  it—  Cases  of  Bishop 
Williams,  Prynne,  &c. — Laud,  his  Character  —  Lord  Strafford  —  Correspondence 
between  these  two  —  Conduct  of  Laud  in  the  Church-Prosecution  of  Puritans  — 
Favor  shown  to  Catholics  —  Tendency  to  their  Religion  —  Expectations  enter 
tained  by  them  —  Mission  of  Panzani  —  Intrigue  of  Bishop  Montagu  with  him 
—  Chillingworth  —  Hales  —  Character  of  Clarendon's  Writings  —  Animadver 
sions  on  his  Account  of  this  Period  —  Scots  Troubles,  and  Distress  of  the  Govern 
ment  —  Parliament  of  April,  1640  —  Council  of  York  —  Convocation  of  Long 
Parliament. 

THE  dissolution  of  a  parliament  was  always  to  the  preroga 
tive  what  the  dispersion  of  clouds  is  to  the  sun.  Dcclaration 
As  if  in  mockery  of  the  transient  obstruction,  it  of  the  king 
shone  forth  as  splendid  and  scorching  as  before.  Solution. 
Even   after   the    exertions  of  the   most   popular 
and  intrepid  house  of  commons  that  had  ever  met,  and  after 
the  most  important  statute  that  had  been  passed  for  some 
hundred    years,    Charles    found   himself  in    an    instant   un 
shackled  by  his  law  or  his  word  ;   once  more  that  absolute 
king  for  whom  his  sycophants  had  preached  and  pleaded, 
as  if  awakened  from  a  fearful  dream  of  sounds  and  sights 
that  such  monarchs  hate  to  endure,  to  the  full  enjoyment  of 


10  PROSECUTIONS   OF  CHAP.  VIII. 

an  unrestrained  prerogative.  He  announced  his  intentions 
of  government  for  the  future  in  a  long  declaration  of  the 
causes  of  the  late  dissolution  of  parliament,  which,  though 
not  without  the  usual  promises  to  maintain  the  laws  and 
liberties  of  the  people,  gave  evident  hints  that  his  own  inter 
pretation  of  them  must  be  humbly  acquiesced  in.1  This  was 
followed  up  by  a  proclamation  that  he  "  should  account  it 
presumption  for  any  to  prescribe  a  time  to  him  for  parlia 
ment,  the  calling,  continuing,  or  dissolving  of  which  was 
always  in  his  own  power  ;  and  he  should  be  more  inclinable 
to  meet  narliame.nt  again,  when  his  people  should  see  more 
•  clearfy/nito  ;liii2  intents  and  actions,  when  such  as  have  bred 
this '  mteil'ifplioM*  shall  have  received  their  condign  punish- 
'.iiieilt^' :  ;He^afi.er\vards  declares  that  he  should  "  not  over- 
1 'change  hk-'StibjVcts,  tiy  any  more  burdens,  but  satisfy  himself 
with  those  duties  that  were  received  by  his  father,  which  he 
neither  could  nor  would  dispense  with  ;  but  should  esteem 
them  unworthy  of  his  protection  who  should  deny  them."  2 

The  king  next  turned  his  mind,  according  to  his  own  and 
Prosecutions  his  father's  practice,  to  take  vengeance  on  those 
of  Eiiot  and  wno  haj  been  most  active  in  their  opposition  to 
conduct  in  him.  A  few  days  after  the  dissolution,  sir  John 
parliament.  E1jotj  Holies,  Seldeii,  Long,  Strode,  and  other 
eminent  members  of  the  commons,  were  committed,  some  to 
the  Tower,  some  to  the  King's  Bench,  and  their  papers 
seized.  Upon  suing  for  their  habeas  corpus,  a  return  was 
made  that  they  were  detained  for  notable  contempts,  and 
for  stirring  up  sedition,  alleged  in  a  warrant  under  the  king's 
sign  manual.  Their  counsel  argued  against  the  sufficiency 
of  this  return,  as  well  on  the  principles  and  precedents  em 
ployed  in  the  former  case  of  sir  Thomas  Darnel  and  his 
colleagues,  as  on  the  late  explicit  confirmation  of  them  in 
the  Petition  of  Right.  The  king's  counsel  endeavored,  by 
evading  the  authority  of  that  enactment,  to  set  up  anew  that 
alarming  pretence  to  a  power  of  arbitrary  imprisonment 
which  the  late  parliament  had  meant  to  silence  forever. 
"  A  petition  in  parliament,"  said  the  attorney-general  Heath, 
u  is  no  law,  yet  it  is  for  the  honor  and  dignity  of  the  king  to 

l  "  It  hath  so  happened,"  he  says,  "  by  highly  contemned  as   our   kingly  office 

the  disobedient  and  seditious  carriage  of  cannot    bear,   nor  any   former   age  can 

those  said  ill-affected  persons  of  the  house  parallel."     Rynier.  xix.  30. 

of  commons,  that  we  and  our  regal  au-  -  Kymer,  xix.  62. 
thority  and  commandment  have  been  so 


CHA.  I.  — 1629-40.          ELIOT  AND   OTHERS.  11 

observe  it  faithfully  ;  but  it  is  the  duty  of  the  people  not  to 
stretch  it  beyond  the  words  and  intention  of  the  king.  And 
no  other  construction  can  be  made  of  the  petition  than  that 
it  is  a  confirmation  of  the  ancient  liberties  and  rights  of  the 
subjects.  So  that  now  the  case  remains  in  the  same  quality 
and  degree  as  it  was  before  the  petition."  Thus,  by  dint  of 
a  sophism  which  turned  into  ridicule  the  whole  proceedings 
of  the  late  parliament,  he  pretended  to  recite  afresh  the  au 
thorities  on  which  he  had  formerly  relied,  in  order  to  prove 
that  one  committed  by  the  command  of  the  king  or  privy 
council  is  not  bailable.  The  judges,  timid  and  servile,  yet 
desirous  to  keep  some  measures  with  their  own  consciences, 
or  looking  forward  to  the  wrath  of  future  parliaments,  wrote 
what  AVhitelock  calls  "  a  humble  and  stout  letter  "  to  the 
king,  that  they  were  bound  to  bail  the  prisoners  ;  but  re 
quested  that  he  would  send  his  direction  to  do  so.1  The 
gentlemen  in  custody  were,  on  this  intimation,  removed  to 
the  Tower;  and  the  king,  in  a  letter  to  the  court,  refused 
permission  for  them  to  appear  on  the  day  when  judgment 
was  to  be  given.  Their  restraint  was  thus  protracted 
through  the  long  vacation ;  towards  the  close  of  which, 
Charles,  sending  for  two  of  the  judges,  told  them  he  was 
content  the  prisoners  should  be  bailed,  notwithstanding  their 
obstinacy  in  refusing  to  present  a  petition  declaring  their 
sorrow  for  having  offended  him.  In  the  ensuing  Michael 
mas  term  accordingly  they  were  brought  before  the  court, 
and  ordered  not  only  to  find  bail  for  the  present  charge,  but 
sureties  for  their  good  behavior.  On  refusing  to  comply 
with  this  requisition,  they  were  remanded  to  custody. 

The  attorney-general,  dropping  the  charge  against  the  rest, 
exhibited  an  information  against  sir  John  Eliot  for  words 
uttered  in  the  house  ;  namely,  That  the  council  and  judges 
had  conspired  to  trample  under  foot  the  liberties  of  the  sub 
ject  ;  and  against  Mr.  Denzil  Holies  and  Mr.  Valentine  for 
a  tumult  on  the  last  day  of  the  session ;  when  the  speaker, 
having  attempted  to  adjourn  the  house  by  the  king's  com 
mand,  had  been  forcibly  held  down  in  the  chair  by  some  of 

i  Whitelock's  Memorials,  p.  14.    White-  Jones  guilty  of  delay  in  not  bailing  these 

lock's   father  was  one  of  the  judges  of  gentlemen,  they   voted  also  that    Croke 

the  king's  bench :  his  son  takes  pains  to  and   Whitelock   were  not    guilty   of  it. 

exculpate  him  from   the  charge   of   too  The  proceedings,  as  we  now  read  them, 

much  compliance,  and  succeeded  so  well  hardly  warrant  this  favorable  distinction, 

with    the   long    parliament    that,   when  Parl.  Hist,  ii  869.  876. 
they  voted  chief-justice  Hyde  and  justice 


12        PROSECUTIONS   OF  ELIOT  AND   OTHERS.       CHAP.  VIII. 

the  members,  while  a  remonstrance  was  voted.  They 
pleaded  to  the  court's  jurisdiction,  because  their  offences 
were  supposed  to  be  committed  in  parliament,  and  conse 
quently  not  punishable  in  any  other  place.  This  brought 
forward  the  great  question  of  privilege,  on  the  determination 
of  which  the  power  of  the  house  of  commons,  and  conse 
quently  the  character  of  the  English  constitution,  seemed 
evidently  to  depend. 

Freedom  of  speech,  being  implied  in  the  nature  of  a  rep 
resentative  assembly  called  to  present  grievances  and  sug 
gest  remedies,  could  not  stand  in  need  of  any  special  law  or 
privilege  to  support  it.  But  it  was  also  sanctioned  by  posi 
tive  authority.  The  speaker  demands  it  at  the  beginning 
of  every  parliament  among  the  standing  privileges  of  the 
house ;  and  it  had  received  a  sort  of  confirmation  from  the 
legislature  by  an  act  passed  in  the  fourth  year  of  Henry 
VIII.,  on  occasion  of  one  Strode,  who  had  been  prosecuted 
and  imprisoned  in  the  Stannary  court,  for  proposing  in  par 
liament  some  regulations  for  the  tinners  in  Cornwall ;  which 
annuls  all  that  had  been  done,  or  might  hereafter  be  done, 
towards  Strode,  for  any  matter  relating  to  the  parliament,  in 
words  so  strong  as  to  form,  in  the  opinion  of  many  lawyers, 
a  general  enactment.  The  judges  however  held,  on  the 
question  being  privately  sent  to  them  by  the  king,  that  the 
statute  concerning  Strode  was  a  particular  act  of  parliament 
extending  only  to  him  and  those  who  had  joined  with  him  to 
prefer  a  bill  to  the  commons  concerning  tinners ;  but  that, 
although  the  act  were  private  and  extended  to  them  alone, 
yet  it  was  no  more  than  all  other  parliament-men,  by  priv 
ilege  of  the  house,  ought  to  have ;  namely,  freedom  of 
speech  concerning  matters  there  debated.1 

It  appeared  by  a  constant  series  of  precedents,  the  counsel 
for  Eliot  and  his  friends  argued,  that  the  liberties  and  priv 
ileges  of  parliament  could  only  be  determined  therein,  and 
not  by  any  inferior  court ;  that  the  judges  had  often  declined 
to  give  their  opinions  on  such  subjects,  alleging  that  they 
were  beyond  their  jurisdiction ;  that  the  words  imputed  to 
Eliot  were  in  the  nature  of  an  accusation  of  persons  in 
power  which  the  commons  had  an  undoubted  right  to  prefer  ; 

i  Strode's  act  is  printed  in  Hatsell's  like  many  of  our  ancient  laws,  so  con- 
Precedents,  vol.  i.  p.  80,  and  in  several  fusedly  as  to  make  its  application  uncer- 
other  books,  as  well  as  in  the  great  edition  tain ;  but  it  rather  appears  to  me  not  to 
of  Statutes  of  the  Realm.  It  is  worded,  have  been  intended  as  a  public  act. 


CHA.  I.  — 1629-40.      JUDGMENT   OF  KING'S   BENCH.  13 

that  no  one  would  venture  to  complain  of  grievances  in  par 
liament,  if  he  should  be  subjected  to  punishment  at  the  dis 
cretion  of  an  inferior  tribunal ;  that  whatever  instances  had 
occurred  of  punishing  the  alleged  offences  of  members  after 
a  dissolution  were  but  acts  of  power,  which  no  attempt  had 
hitherto  been  made  to  sanction  ;  finally,  that  the  offences 
imputed  might  be  punished  in  a  future  parliament. 

The  attorney-general  replied  to  the  last  point,  that  the 
king  was  not  bound  to  wait  for  another  parliament ;  and, 
moreover,  that  the  house  of  commons  was  not  a  court  of  jus 
tice,  nor  had  any  power  to  proceed  criminally,  except  by 
imprisoning  its  own  members.  He  admitted  that  the  judges 
had  sometimes  declined  to  give  their  judgment  upon  matters 
of  privilege  ;  but  contended  that  such  cases  had  happened 
during  the  session  of  parliament,  and  that  it  did  not  follow 
but  that  an  offence  committed  in  the  house  might  be  ques 
tioned  after  a  dissolution.  He  set  aside  the  application  of 
Strode's  case,  as  being  a  special  act  of  parliament ;  and  dwelt 
on  the  precedent  of  an  information  preferred  in  the  reign  of 
Mary  against  certain  members  for  absenting  themselves  from 
their  duty  in  parliament,  which,  though  it  never  came  to  a 
conclusion,  was  not  disputed  on  the  ground  of  right. 

The  court  were  unanimous  in  holding  that  they  had  juris 
diction,  though  the  alleged  offences  were  committed  in  par 
liament,  and  that  the  defendants  were  bound  to  answer. 
The  privileges  of  parliament  did  not  extend,  one  of  them 
said,  to  breaches  of  the  peace,  which  was  the  present  case ; 
and  all  offences  against  the  crown,  said  another,  were  pun 
ishable  in  the  court  of  king's  bench.  On  the  parties  refus 
ing  to  put  in  any  other  plea,  judgment  was  given  that  they 
should  be  imprisoned  during  the  king's  pleasure,  and  not  re 
leased  without  giving  surety  for  good  behavior,  and  making 
submission  ;  that  Eliot,  as  the  greatest  offender  and  ring 
leader,  should  be  fined  in  2000/.,  Holies  and  Valentine  to  a 
smaller  amount.1 

Eliot,  the  most  distinguished  leader  of  the  popular  party, 
died  in  the  Tower  without  yielding  to  the  submission  re 
quired.  In  the  long  parliament  the  commons  came  to  sev 
eral  votes  on  the  illegality  of  all  these  proceedings,  both  as 
to  the  delay  in  granting  their  habeas  corpus,  and  the  over 
ruling  their  plea  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  king's  bench.  But 

i  State  Trials,  vol.  iii.  from  Rushworth. 


1 4  PROSECUTION  OF  CHAMBERS.  CHAP.  VIII. 

the  subject  was  revived  again  in  a  more  distant  and  more 
tranquil  period.  In  the  year  1667  the  commons  resolved 
that  the  act  of  4  H.  VIII.  concerning  Strode  was  a  general 
law,  "extending  to  indemnify  all  and  every  the  members  of 
both  houses  of  parliament,  in  all  parliaments,  for  and  touch 
ing  any  bills,  speaking,  reasoning,  or  declaring  of  any  mat 
ter  or  matters  in  and  concerning  the  parliament  to  be 
communed  and  treated  of,  and  is  a  declaratory  law  of  the 
ancient  and  necessary  rights  and  privileges  of  parliament." 
They  resolved  also  that  the  judgment  given  5  Car.  I.  against 
sir  John  Eliot,  Denzil  Holies,  and  Benjamin  Valentine,  is 
an  illegal  judgment,  and  against  the  freedom  and  privilege 
of  parliament.  To  these  resolutions  the  lords  gave  their  con 
currence.  And  Holies,  then  become  a  peer,  having  brought 
the  record  of  the  king's  bench  by  writ  of  error  before  them, 
they  solemnly  reversed  the  judgment.1  An  important  de 
cision  with  respect  to  our  constitutional  law,  which  has 
established  beyond  controversy  the  great  privilege  of  unlim 
ited  freedom  of  speech  in  parliament;  unlimited,  I  mean, 
by  any  authority  except  that  by  which  the  house  itself  ought 
always  to  restrain  indecent  and  disorderly  language  in  its 
members.  It  does  not,  however,  appear  to  be  a  necessary 
consequence,  from  the  reversal  of  this  judgment,  that  no  ac 
tions  committed  in  the  house  by  any  of  its  members  are  pun 
ishable  in  a  court  of  law.  The  argument  in  behalf  of  Holies 
and  Valentine  goes  indeed  to  this  length  ;  but  it  was  admit 
ted  in  the  debate  on  the  subject  in  1667  that  their  plea  to  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  king's  bench  could  not  have  been  sup 
ported  as  to  the  imputed  riot  in  detaining  the  speaker  in  the 
chair,  though  the  judgment  was  erroneous  in  extending  to 
words  spoken  in  parliament.  And  it  is  obvious  that  the 
house  could  inflict  no  adequate  punishment  in  the  possible 
case  of  treason  or  felony  committed  within  its  walls ;  nor, 
if  its  power  of  imprisonment  be  limited  to  the  session,  in  that 
of  many  smaller  offences. 

The  customs  on  imported  merchandises  were  now  rigor 
ously  enforced.2  But  the  late  discussions  in  parliament,  and 
Prosecution  ^ie  growing  disposition  to  probe  the  legality  of  all 
of  Chambers  acts  of  the  crown,  rendered  the  merchants  more 
forpraeyucsis?  discontented  than  ever.  Richard  Chambers,  hav- 
toms.  ing  refused  to  pay  any  further  duty  for  a  bale 

i  Hatsell.  pp.  212,  242.  2  Rushworth 


CHA.  I.— 1029-40.       BEHAVIOR  OF  JUDGES.  15 

of  silks  than  might  be  required  by  law,  was  summoned  be 
fore  the  privy  counsel.  In  the  presence  of  that  board  he 
was  provoked  to  exclaim  that  in  no  part  of  the  world,  not 
even  in  Turkey,  were  the  merchants  so  screwed  and  wrung 
as  in  England.  For  these  hasty  words  an  information  was 
preferred  against  him  in  the  star-chamber ;  and  the  court, 
being  of  opinion  that  the  words  were  intended  to  make  the 
people  believe  that  his  majesty's  happy  government  might 
be  termed  Turkish  tyranny,  manifested  their  laudable  ab 
horrence  of  such  tyranny  by  sentencing  him  to  pay  a  fine 
of  2000/.,  and  to  make  a  humble  submission.  Chambers,  a 
sturdy  puritan,  absolutely  refused  to  subscribe  the  form  of 
submission  tendered  to  him,  and  was  of  course  committed  to 
prison.  But  the  court  of  king's  bench  admitted  him  to  bail 
on  a  habeas  corpus ;  for  which,  as  Whitelock  tells  us,  they 
were  reprimanded  by  the  council.1 

There  were  several  instances,  besides  this  just  mentioned, 
wherein  the  indues  manifested  a  more  courageous  „ 

.J       °  Commend- 

spint  than  they  were  able  constantly  to  preserve  ;  able  behav- 
and  the  odium  under  which  their  memory  labors  -uj,°efs  in 
for  a  servile  compliance  with  the  court,  especially  some  lo 
in  the  case  of  ship-money,  renders  it  but  an  act  of  B 
justice  to  record  those  testimonies  they  occasionally  gave  of 
a  nobler  sense  of  duty.     They  unanimously  declared,  when 
Charles  expressed  a  desire  that   Felton,  the  assassin  of  the 
duke  of  Buckingham,  might  be  put  to  the  rack  in  order  to 
make  him  discover  his  accomplices,  that  the  law  of  England 
did  not  allow  the  use  of  torture.     This  is  a  remarkable  proof 
that,  amidst  all  the  arbitrary  principles  and  arbitrary  meas 
ures   of  the   time,  a  truer  sense  of  the  inviolability  of  law 
had  begun  to  prevail,  and  that  the  free  constitution  of  Eng 
land  was  working  off  the  impurities  with  which  violence  had 
stained  it.     For,  though  it  be  most  certain  that  the  law  never 
recognized  the  use  of  torture,  there  had  been  many  instances 
of  its  employment,  and  even  within   a  few  years.2     In  this 

1  Rushworth  ;    State  Trials,   iii.   373  ;  cially  against   Roman   catholics,    under 
Whitelock,    p.    12.       Chambers    applied  Elizabeth.      Those  accused  of  the  gun- 
several  times  for  redress  to  the  long  par-  powder    conspiracy    were    also    severely 
liament  on  account  of   this  and   subse-  tortured  ;   and  others  in  the    reign    of 
quent  injuries,  but  seems  to  have  been  James.    Coke,  in  the  Countess  of  Shrews- 
cruelly  neglected,  while  they  were  voting  bury's  case.  1612,  State  Trials,  ii.   773, 
large   sums   to   those  who  had   suffered  mentions  it  as  a  privilege  of  the  nobility 
much  less,  and  he  died  in  poverty.  that  '•  their  bodies  are  not  subject  to  tor- 

2  I  have  remarked  in  former  passages  ture  in  causa  criminis  laesa?  majestatis." 
that  the  rack  was  much  employed,  espe-  Yet,  in  his  Third  Institute,  p.  35,  he  says 


16  BEHAVIOR  OF  JUDGES.  CHAP.  VIII. 

public  assertion  of  its  illegality  the  judges  conferred  an  em 
inent  service  on  their  country,  and  doubtless  saved  the  king 
and  his  council  much  additional  guilt  and  infamy  which  they 
would  have  incurred  in  the  course  of  their  career.  They 
declared  about  the  same  time,  on  a  reference  to  them  con 
cerning  certain  disrespectful  words  alleged  to  have  been 
spoken  by  one  Pine  against  the  king,  that  no  words  can  of 
themselves  amount  to  treason  within  the  statute  of  Edward 
III.  *  They  resolved,  some  years  after,  that  Prynne's, 
Burton's,  and  Bast  wick's  libels  against  the  bishops  were  no 
treason.2  In  their  old  controversy  with  the  ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction  they  were  inflexibly  tenacious.  An  action  hav 
ing  been  brought  against  some  members  of  the  high-com 
mission  court  for  false  imprisonment,  the  king,  on  Laud's 
remonstrance,  sent  a  message  to  desire  that  the  suit  might 
not  proceed  till  he  should  have  conversed  with  the  judges. 
The  chief-justice  made  answer  that  they  were  bound  by  their 
oaths  not  to  delay  the  course  of  justice  ;  and,  after  a  con 
tention  before  the  privy  council,  the  commissioners  were 
compelled  to  plead.3 

Such  instances  of  firmness  serve  to  extenuate  those  un 
happy  deficiencies  which  are  more  notorious  in  history.  Had 
the  judges  been  as  numerous  and  independent  as  those  of 
the  parliament  of  Paris,  they  would  not  probably  have  been 

the  rack  in  the  Tower  was  brought  in  by  a  theory  which  does,  as  it  seems  to  me, 

the  duke  of  Exeter,  under  Henry  VI.,  go  the  full  length  of  justifying,  in  a  le- 

and    is    therefore   familiarly  called    the  gal  sense,  the  violent  proceedings  of  the 

duke   of  Exeter's  daughter:    and,  after  crown  under  all   the    Plantagenets,  Tu- 

quoting  Fortescue  to  prove  the  practice  dors,  and  Stuarts.     1845.] 

illegal,  concludes  —  "  There  is  no  law  to  l  State  Trials,  iii.  359.    This  was  a  very 

warrant   tortures  in  this  laud,  nor  can  important  determination,  and  put  an  end 

they  be  justified  by  any  prescription,  be-  to  such  tyrannical  persecution  of  Roman 

ing   so   lately  brought   in."     Bacon   ob-  catholics  for  bare  expressions  of  opinion 

serves,  in  a  tract  written  in  1603,  "In  the  as  had  been  used  under  Elizabeth  and 

highest  cases  of  treason,  torture  is  used  James. 

for  discovery,  and  not  for  evidence,"  i.  "  llushworth's  Abr.,  ii.  253;  Strafford's 

393.     See  also  Miss  Aikin's  Memoirs  of  Letters,  ii.  74. 

James  I.,  ii.  158.  a  Whitelock,  16  ;  Rennet.  63.     We  find 

[This  subject  has  been  learnedly  elu-  in  Rymer,  xix.  279,  a  commission,  dated 

cidated  by  Mr.  .lardine,  in  his  ''  Reading  May  6,  1631,  enabling  the  privy  council 


on  the  Use  of  Torture  in  the  Criminal    at  all  times  to  come,  "  to  hear  and  ex- 
of  England,  1837."     The  historical    amine  all  differences   which 


facts  are  very  well  brougM  together  in  betwixt  any   of    our  courts  of  justice, 

this  essay  ;  but  I  cannot  agree  with  this  especially  between  the  civil   and    eccle- 

highly-intelligent  author  in  considering  siastical  jurisdictions,"  &c.     This  was  in 

the  use  of  torture  as  having  been  "  law-  all  probability  contrived  by  Laud,  or  some 

ful  as  an  act  of  prerogative,  though  not  so  of  those  who  did  not  favor  the  common 

by  the  common  and  statute  law."   P.  59.  law.     But  I  do  not  find  that  anything 

The  whole  tenor  of  my  own  views  of  the  was  done  under  this  commission,  which, 

constitution,  as  developed  in  this  and  in  I  need  hardly  say,  was  as  illegal  as  most 

former  works,  forbids  my  acquiescence  in  of  the  king's  other  proceedings. 


CHA.  I.  —  1029-40.    COMPOSITIONS  FOR  KNIGHTHOOD.  1 7 

wanting  in  equal  vigor.  But,  holding  their  offices  at  the 
king's  will,  and  exposed  to  the  displeasure  of  his  council 
whenever  they  opposed  any  check  to  the  prerogative,  they 
held  a  vacillating  course,  which  made  them  obnoxious  to 
those  who  sought  for  despotic  power,  while  it  forfeited  the 
esteem  of  the  nation. 

In  pursuance  of  the   system  adopted    by   Charles's   min 
isters,    they  had   recourse    to  exactions,  some   odi-  Means 
ous   and   obsolete,  some   of  very  questionable  le-  J^jfJJ^*0 
gality,   and    others   clearly    against    law.     Of  the  revenue. 
former  class  may  be  reckoned  the  compositions  for  tiouTfor" 
not  taking  the  order  of  knighthood.     The   early  knighthood. 
kings  of  England,  Henry  III.  and    Edward  I.,  very  little  in 
the  spirit   of  chivalry,  had  introduced  the  practice  of  sum 
moning  their  military  tenants,   holding   201.  per  annum,  to 
receive    knighthood   at   their    hands.      Those  who   declined 
this  honor  were  permitted  to  redeem  their  absence  by  a  mod 
erate  fine.1     Elizabeth,  once   in   her  reign,  and  James,  had 
availed  themselves  of  this  ancient  right.     But  the  change  in 
the  value  of  money  rendered  it  far  more  oppressive  than  for 
merly,  though  limited  to  the  holders  of  40/.  per  annum  in 
military    tenure.       Commissioners   were    now    appointed    to 
compound  with  those  who  had  neglected  some  years  before 
to  obey  the  proclamation,  summoning  them  to  receive  knight 
hood  at  the  king's  coronation.'2     In  particular  instances  very 
severe  fines  are  recorded  to  have  been  imposed  upon  default 
ers,  probably  from  some  political  resentment.3 

Still  greater  dissatisfaction   attended  the  king's  attempt  to 
revive  the  ancient  laws  of  the  forests  —  those  laws, 

f,      ,  .    ,  IT.-  i    •     ,       i       i  lorest  laws. 

ot  which,  in   elder  times,  so  many  complaints   had 

been  heard,  exacting  money  by  means  of  pretensions  which 

long  disuse   had  rendered  dubious,  and  showing  himself  to 

1  2   Inst.  593.     The   regulations   con-  force,  which   by  express  words  exempts 
tained  in  the  statute  de  inilitibus,  1  Ed.  them.     See  Mr.  Brodie's  Hist,  of  British 
II.,  though  apparently  a  temporary  law,  Empire,  ii.  282.     There  is  still  some  dif- 
seem  to  have  been  considered  by  Coke  as  ficulty  about  this,  which  I  cannot  clear 
permanently  binding.     Yet  in  this  stat-  up,  nor  comprehend  why  the  title,  if  it 
ute  the  estate  requiring  knighthood,  or  could  be  had  for  asking,  was  so  continu- 
a  composition  for*  it,  is  fixed  at  20/.  per  ally  declined;   unless  it  were,  as  Mr.  B. 
annum.  hints,  that  the  fees  of  knighthood  greatly 

2  According  to  a  speech  of  Mr.  Hyde  in  exceeded  the  composition.    Perhaps  none 
the  long  parliament,  not  only  military,  who  could  not  prove  their  gentility  were 
tenants,  but  all  others,  and  even  lessees  admitted  to  the  honor,  though  the  fine 
and  merchants,  were  summoned  before  was  extorted  from  them.     It  is  said  that 
the  council  on  this  account.     Parl.  Hist,  the  king  got  100.000/.  by   this  resource, 
ii.  948.     This  was  evidently  illegal  ;  espe-  Macaulay,  ii.  107. 

cially  if  the  Statutum  de  militibus  was  in        a  Kusliworth's  Abr.  ii.  102. 
VOL.    II.  2 


18  MONOPOLIES.  CHAP.  VIII. 

those  who  lived  on  the  borders  of  those  domains  in  the  hate 
ful  light  of  a  litigious  and  encroaching  neighbor.  The  earl 
of  Holland  held  a  court  almost  every  year,  as  chief-justice 
in  eyre,  for  the  recovery  of  the  king's  forestal  rights,  which 
made  great  havoc  with  private  property.  No  prescription 
could  be  pleaded  against  the  king's  title,  which  was  to  be 
found,  indeed,  by  the  inquest  of  a  jury,  but  under  the  direc 
tion  of  a  very  partial  tribunal.  The  royal  forests  in  Essex 
were  so  enlarged  that  they  were  hyperbolically  said  to  in 
clude  the  whole  county.1  The  earl  of  Southampton  was 
nearly  ruined  by  a  decision  that  stripped  him  of  his  estate 
near  the  New  Forest.2  The  boundaries  of  Rockingham 
forest  were  increased  from  six  miles  to  sixty,  and  enormous 
fines  imposed  on  the  trespassers ;  lord  Salisbury  being 
amerced  in  20,000/.,  lord  Westmoreland  in  19.000/.,  Sir 
Christopher  Hatton  in  12,000/.3  It  is  probable  that  a  part 
of  these  Avas  remitted. 

A  greater  profit  was  derived  from  a  still  more  pernicious 
Mono  olies  an(^  indefensible  measure,  the  establishment  of  a 
chartered  company  with  exclusive  privileges  of 
making  soap.  The  recent  statute  against  monopolies  seemed 
to  secure  the  public  against  this  species  of  grievance.  Noy, 
however,  the  attorney-general,  a  lawyer  of  uncommon  emi 
nence,  and  lately  a  strenuous  assertor  of  popular  rights  in  the 
house  of  commons,  devised  this  project,  by  which  he  prob 
ably  meant  to  evade  the  letter  of  the  law,  since  every  manu 
facturer  was  permitted  to  become  a  member  of  the  company. 
They  agreed  to  pay  eight  pounds  for  every  ton  of  soap  made, 
as  well  as  10,000/.  for  their  charter.  For  this  they  were 
empowered  to  appoint  searchers,  and  exercise  a  sort  of  in 
quisition  over  the  trade.  Those  dealers  who  resisted  their 
interference  were  severely  fined  on  informations  in  the  star- 
chamber.  Some  years  afterwards,  however,  the  king  re 
ceived  money  from  a  new  corporation  of  soap-makers,  and 
revoked  the  patent  of  the  former.4 

1  Stratford's  Letters,  i.  835.  cited  no  great  clamor  in  the  long  parlia- 

2  Id.  463,  467.  ment.     And  there  is  in  Rynier,  xx.  585, 

3  Id.  ii.  117.     It   is  well   known   that  a  commission  to  Cottington  and  others, 
Charles  made  Richmond  Park  by  means  directing  them   to  compound   with    the 
of  depriving  many  pi-oprietors  not  only  owners  of  lauds  within  the  intended  en- 
of  common  rights,  but  of  their  freehold  closures.     Dec.  12.  1634. 

lands.  Clarendon,  i.  176.  It  is  not  clear  *  Kennet,  64  ;  Kushworth's  Abridg.  ii. 
that  they  were  ever  compensated  ;  but  I  132;  Strafford's  Letters,  i.  446  :  Kymer. 
think  this  probable,  as  the  matter  ex-  xix.  324  ;  Laud's  Diary,  51. 


CHA.  I.— 1629-40.  SHIP-MONEY.  19 

This  precedent  was  followed  in  the  erection  of  a  similar 
company  of  starch-makers,  and  in  a  great  variety  of  other 
grants,  which  may  be  traced  in  Rymer's  Fcedera,  and  in  the 
proceedings  of  the  long  parliament ;  till  monopolies,  in  trans 
gression  or  evasion  of  the  late  statute,  became  as  common 
as  they  had  been  under  James  or  Elizabeth.  The  king,  by 
a  proclamation  at  York,  in  1639,  beginning  to  feel  the  ne 
cessity  of  diminishing  the  public  odium,  revoked  all  these 
grants.1  He  annulled  at  the  same  time  a  number  of  com 
missions  that  had  been  issued  in  order  to  obtain  money  by 
compounding  with  offenders  against  penal  statutes.  The  cat 
alogue  of  these,  as  well  as  of  the  monopolies,  is  very  curious. 
The  former  Avere,  in  truth,  rather  vexatious  than  illegal,  and 
sustained  by  precedents  in  what  were  called  the  golden  ages 
of  Elizabeth  and  James,  though  at  all  times  the  source  of 
great  and  just  discontent. 

The  name  of  Noy  has  acquired  an  unhappy  celebrity  by 
a  far  more  famous  invention,  which  promised  to  _. 

,.  ,  .  Ship-money. 

realize  the  most  sanguine  hopes  that  could  have 
been  formed  of  carrying  on  the  government  for  an  indefinite 
length  of  time  without  the  assistance  of  parliament.  Shaking 
off  the  dust  of  ages  from  parchments  in  the  Tower,  this  man 
of  venal  diligence  and  prostituted  learning  discovered  that 
the  seaports  and  even  maritime  counties  had  in  early  times 
been  sometimes  called  upon  to  furnish  ships  for  the  public 
service  ;  nay,  there  were  instances  of  a  similar  demand  upon 
some  inland  places.  Noy  himself  died  almost  immediately 
afterwards.  Notwithstanding  his  apostasy  from  the  public 
cause,  it  is  just  to  remark  that  we  have  no  right  to  impute  to 
him  the  more  extensive  and  more  unprecedented  scheme  of 
ship-money,  as  a  general  tax,  which  was  afterwards  carried 
into  execution.  But  it  sprang  by  natural  consequence  from 
the  former  measure,  according  to  the  invariable  course  of 
encroachment,  which  those  who  have  once  bent  the  laws  to 
their  will  ever  continue  to  pursue.  The  first  writ  issued 
from  the  council  in  October,  1634.  It  was  directed  to  the 
magistrates  of  London  and  other  seaport  towns.  Reciting 
the  depredations  lately  committed  by  pirates,  and  slightly  ad 
verting  to  the  dangers  imminent  in  a  season  of  general  war 
on  the  continent,  it  enjoins  them  to  provide  a  certain  number 
of  ships  of  war  of  a  prescribed  tonnage  and  equipage  ;  em- 

i  Rymer,  xx.  310. 


20  FOREIGN  POLICY.  CHAI-.  VIII. 

powering  them  also  to  assess  all  the  inhabitants  for  a  con 
tribution  towards  this  armament  according  to  their  substance. 
The  citizens  of  London  humbly  remonstrated  that  they  con 
ceived  themselves  exempt,  by  sundry  charters  and  acts  of 
parliament,  from  bearing  such  a  charge.  But  the  council 
peremptorily  compelled  their  submission,  and  the  murmurs 
of  inferior  towns  were  still  more  easily  suppressed.  This  is 
said  to  have  cost  the  city  of  London  35,()00l.1 

There  wanted  not  reasons  in  the  cabinet  of  Charles  for 
placing  the  navy  at  this  time  on  a  respectable  footing.  Al- 
gerine  pirates  had  become  bold  enough  to  infest  the  Channel, 
and,  what  was  of  more  serious  importance,  the  Dutch  were 
rapidly  acquiring  a  maritime  preponderance  which  excited  a 
natural  jealousy  both  for  our  commerce  and  the  honor  of  our 
flag.  This  commercial  rivalry  conspired  with  a  far  more 
powerful  motive  at  court,  an  abhorrence  of  everything  repub 
lican  or  Calvinistic,  to  make  our  course  of  policy  towards 
Holland  not  only  unfriendly,  but  insidious  and  inimical  in 
the  highest  degree.  A  secret  treaty  is  extant,  signed  in 
1631,  by  which  Charles  engaged  to  assist  the  king  of  Spain 
in  the  conquest  of  that  great  protestant  commonwealth,  re 
taining  the  isles  of  Zealand  as  the  price  of  his  cooperation.2 

Yet,  with  preposterous  inconsistency,  as  well  as  ill  faith, 
the  two  characteristics  of  all  this  unhappy  prince's  foreign 
policy,  we  find  him  in  the  next  year  carrying  on  a  negotiation 
with  a  disaffected  party  in  the  Netherlands,  in  some  strange 
expectation  of  obtaining  the  sovereignty  on  their  separation 
from  Spain.  Lord  Cottington  betrayed  this  intrigue  (of 
which  one  whom  we  should  little  expect  to  find  in  these 
paths  of  conspiracy,  Peter  Paul  Rubens,  was  the  negotiator) 
to  the  court  of  Madrid.3  It  was,  in  fact,  an  unpardonable 
and  unprovoked  breach  of  faith  on  the  king's  part,  and 
accounts  for  the  indifference,  to  say  no  more,  which  that  gov 
ernment  always  showed  to  his  misfortunes.  Charles,  whose 
domestic  position  rendered  a  pacific  system  absolutely  neces- 

i  Kennct.  74,   75;    Strafford's  Letters,  novelty.      But  they  were  summoned  to 

i.  358.     Some    petty  seaports    in  Sussex  London  for  this,  and   received    a   repri- 

refused  to  pay  ship-money  ;  but,  finding  mand  for  their  interference.     Id.  372. 

that  the  sheriff  had  authority  to  distrain  2  Clarendon  State  Papers,  i.  49,  and  ii. 

on  them,  submitted.     The   deputy-lieu-  Append,  p.  xxvi. 

tenants  of  Devonshire  wrote  to  the  coun-  a  This    curious    intrigue,   before    un- 

cil  in  behalf  of  some  towns  a  few  miles  known,  I  believe,  to  history,  was  brouglit 

distant   from   the   sea,  that   they  might  to  light  by  lord  llardwicke.    State  Papers, 

be  spared  from  this  tax,  saying  it  was  a  ii.  54. 


CHA.  I.  — 1629-40.  FOREIGN  POLICY.  21 

saiy,  busied  himself  far  more  than  common  history  lias  re 
corded  with  the  affairs  of  Europe.  He  was  engaged  in  a 
tedious  and  unavailing  negotiation  with  both  branches  of  the 
house  of  Austria,  especially  with  the  court  of  Madrid,  for 
the  restitution  of  the  Palatinate.  lie  took  a  much  greater 
interest  than  his  father  had  done  in  the  fortunes  of  his  sister 
and  her  family;  but,  like  his  father,  he  fell  into  the  delusion 
that  the  cabinet  of  Madrid,  for  whom  he  could  effect  but 
little,  or  that  of  Vienna,  to  whom  he  could  offer  nothing, 
would  so  far  realize  the  cheap  professions  of  friendship  they 
were  always  making  as  to  sacrifice  a  conquest  wherein  the 
preponderance  of  the  house  of  Austria  and  the  catholic  re 
ligion  in  Germany  were  so  deeply  concerned.  They  drew 
him  on  accordingly  through  the  labyrinths  of  diplomacy,  as 
sisted,  no  doubt,  by  that  party  in  his  council,  composed  at 
this  time  of  lord  Cottington,  secretary  Windebank,  and  some 
others,  who  had  always  favored  Spanish  connections.1  It 
appears  that  the  fleet  raised  in  1G34  was  intended,  according 
to  an  agreement  entered  into  with  Spain,  to  restrain  the 
Dutch  from  fishing  in  the  English  seas,  nay,  even  as  oppor 
tunities  should  arise,  to  cooperate  hostilely  with  that  of 
Spain.2  After  above  two  years  spent  in  these  negotiations, 
Charles  discovered  that  the  house  of  Austria  were  deceiving 
him  ;  and,  still  keeping  in  view  the  restoration  of  his  nephew 
to  the  electoral  dignity  and  territories,  entered  into  stricter 
relations  with  France  :  a  policy  which  might  be  deemed  con 
genial  to  the  queen's  inclinations,  and  recommended  by  her 
party  in  his  council,  the  earl  of  Holland,  sir  Henry  Vane, 
and  perhaps  by  the  earls  of  Northumberland  and  Arundel. 
In  the  first  impulse  of  indignation  at  the  duplicity  of  Spain, 

1  Sec  Clarendon  State  Papers,  i.  490,  for  seas,  to  satisfy  the  court  of  Spain  himself 
a  proof  of  the  manner  in  which,  through  out  of  ships  and  goods  belonging  to  the 
the  Hispano-popish  party  in  the  cabinet,  Dutch;  and  by  the  second,  to  give  secret 
the  house  of  Austria  hoped  to  dupe  and  instructions  to  the  commanders  of  his 
dishonor  Charles.  ships,    that,    when   those  of   Spain  and 

2  Clarendon    State   Papers,   i.   109,  et  Flanders  should  encounter  their  enemies 
post.     Five  English   ships  out  of  twenty  at  open  sea,  far  from  his  coasts  and  limits, 
were  to  be  at  the  charge  of  the  king  of  they  should  assist  them  if  over-matched, 
Spain.    Besides  this  agreement,  according  and    should    give    the    like    help  to  the 
to  which  the   English   were  only   bound  prizes  which  they  should  meet,  taken  by 
to  protect  the  ships  of  Spain  within  their  the  Dutch,  that  they  might  be  freed  and 
own  seas,  or  the  limits  claimed  as  such,  set  at  liberty  :    taking  some   convenient 
there  were  certain  secret  articles,  signed  pretext  to  justify  it.  that  the  Hollanders 
Dec.  16.  1(534  :  by  one  of  which   Charles  might   not  hold    it  an  act    of  hostility, 
bound  himself,  in  case  the  Dutch  should  But  no  part  of  his  treaty  was  to  take  effect 
not   make    restitution    of  some  Spanish  till   the   imperial  ban  upon    the  elector 
vessels  taken  by  them  within  the  English  palatine  should  be  removed.     Id.  215. 


22  SHIP-MONEY.  CHAP.  VIII. 

the  king  yielded  so  far  to  their  counsels  as  to  meditate  a 
declaration  of  war  against  that  power.1  But  his  own  cooler 
judgment,  or  the  strong  dissuasions  of  Strafford,  who  saw 
that  external  peace  was  an  indispensable  condition  for  the 
security  of  despotism,2  put  an  end  to  so  imprudent  a  project ; 
though  he  preserved,  to  the  very  meeting  of  the  long  par 
liament,  an  intimate  connection  with  France,  and  even  con 
tinued  to  carry  on  negotiations,  tedious  and  insincere,  for  an 
offensive  alliance.3  Yet  he  still  made,  from  time  to  time, 
similar  overtures  to  Spain  ; 4  and  this  unsteadiness,  or  rather 
duplicity,  which  could  not  easily  be  concealed  from  two  cab 
inets  eminent  for  their  secret  intelligence,  rendered  both  of 
them  his  enemies,  and  the  instruments,  as  there  is  much  rea 
son  to  believe,  of  some  of  his  greatest  calamities.  It  is  well 
known  that  the  Scots  covenanters  were  in  close  connection 
with  Richelieu,  and  many  circumstances  render  it  probable 
that  the  Irish  rebellion  was  countenanced  and  instigated  both 
by  him  and  by  Spain. 

This  desire  of  being  at  least  prepared  for  war,  as  well  as 
Extension  the  general  system  of  stretching  the  prerogative 
of  writs  for  bevond  all  limits,  suggested  an  extension  of  the 

ship-money  •>  '         °°  i     i     i  • 

to  inland  former  writs  from  the  seaports  to  the  whole  king- 
places,  dom.  Finch,  chief-justice  of  the  common  pleas, 
has  the  honor  of  this  improvement  on  Noy's  scheme.  He 
was  a  man  of  little  learning  or  respectability,  a  servile  tool 
of  the  despotic  cabal ;  who,  as  speaker  of  the  last  parliament, 
had,  in  obedience  to  a  command  from  the  king  to  adjourn, 
refused  to  put  the  question  upon  a  remonstrance  moved  in 
the  house.  By  the  new  writs  for  ship-money,  properly  so 
denominated,  since  the  former  had  only  demanded  the  actual 

1  Clarendon  State  Papers,  i.  721,  761.  Richelieu  in  1639  is  matter  of  notorious 

2  Strafford    Papers,  ii.    52,  53.  60,  66.  history.      It  has  lately  been  confirmed 
Richelieu  sent  d'Estrades  to  London,  in  and  illustrated  by  an  important  note  in 
1637,  according  to  Pere  Orleans,  to  secure  Mazure.     Hist,  de  la  Revolution  en  1688, 
the  neutrality  of  England  in  case  of  his  ii.  402.     It   appears    by  the  above-men- 
attackingthe  maritime  towns  of  Flanders  tioned  note  of  Mr.  Mazure  that  the  cele- 
conjointly  with  the  Dutch.     But  the  am-  brated  letter  of  the  Scotch  lords,  address- 
bassador  was  received  haughtily,  and  the  ed  "Au  Roy,"  was  really  sent,  and  is  ex 
neutrality  refused  ;   which  put  an  end  to  tant.     There  seems  reason  to  think  that 
the  scheme,  and  so  irritated  Richelieu,  Henrietta  joined    the  Austrian    faction 
that  he  sent  a  priest  named  Chamberlain  about  1639;  her   mother   being  then  in 
to  Edinburgh  the  same  year,  in  order  to  England  and  very  hostile    to  Richelieu, 
foment    troubles    in   Scotland.      Revol.  This  is  in  some  degree  corroborated  by  a 
d'Anglet.  iii.  42.     This  is  confirmed  by  passage  in  a  letter  of  lady  Carlisle.     Sid- 
d'Estrades  himself.     See  note  in  Sidney  ney  Papers,  ii.  614. 

Papers,   ii.   447.    and    Harris's   Life    of         ^  Sidney  Papers,  ii.  613. 
Charles,  189  ;    also  Lingard,  x.  69.     The        *  Clarendon  State  Papers,  ii.  16- 
connection   of  the   Scotch   leaders   with 


CHA.  I.  — 1629-40.  SHIP-MONEY.  23 

equipment  of  vessels,  for  which  inland  counties  were  of 
course  obliged  to  compound,  the  sheriffs  were  directed  to 
assess  every  landholder  and  other  inhabitant,  according  to 
their  judgment  of  his  means,  and  to  enforce  the  payment  by 
distress.1 

This  extraordinary  demand  startled  even  those  who  had 
hitherto  sided  with  the  court.  Some  symptoms  of  opposition 
were  shown  in  different  places,  and  actions  brought  against 
those  who  had  collected  the  money.  But  the  greater  part 
yielded  to  an  overbearing  power,  exercised  with  such  rigor 
that  no  one  in  this  king's  reign  who  had  ventured  on  the 
humblest  remonstrance  against  any  illegal  act  had  escaped 
without  punishment.  Indolent  and  improvident  men  satis 
fied  themselves  that  the  imposition  was  not  very  heavy,  and 
might  not  be  repeated.  Some  were  content  to  hope  that 
their  contribution,  however  unduly  exacted,  would  be  faith 
fully  applied  to  public  ends.  Others  were  overborne  by  the 
authority  of  pretended  precedents,  and  could  not  yet  believe 
that  the  sworn  judges  of  the  law  would  pervert  it  to  its  own 
destruction.  The  ministers  prudently  resolved  to  secure  not 
the  law,  but  its  interpreters,  on  their  side.  The  judges  of 
assize  were  directed  to  inculcate  on  their  circuits  the  neces 
sary  obligation  of  forwarding  the  king's  service  by  complying 
with  his  writ.  But,  as  the  measure  grew  more  obnoxious, 
and  strong  doubts  of  its  legality  came  more  to  prevail,  it  was 
thought  expedient  to  publish  an  extrajudicial  opinion  of  the 
twelve  judges,  taken  at  the  king's  special  command,  accord 
ing  to  the  pernicious  custom  of  that  age.  They  gave  it  as 
their  unanimous  opinion  that,  "  when  the  good  and  safety  of 
the  kingdom  in  general  is  concerned,  and  the  whole  kingdom 
in  danger,  his  majesty  might,  by  writ  under  the  great  seal, 
command  all  his  subjects,  at  their  charge,  to  provide  and  fur 
nish  such  number  of  ships,  with  men,  munition,  and  victuals, 
and  for  such  times,  as  he  should  think  fit,  for  the  defence  and 
safeguard  of  the  kingdom  ;  and  that  by  law  he  might  compel 
the  doing  thereof,  in  case  of  refusal  or  refractoriness ;  and 
that  he  was  the  sole  judge  both  of  the  danger,  and  when  and 
how  the  same  was  to  be  prevented  and  avoided." 

This  premature  declaration  of  the  judges,  which  was  pub 
licly  read  by  the  lord-keeper  Coventry  in  the  star-chamber, 
did  not  prevent  a  few  intrepid  persons  from  bringing  the 

1  See  the  instructions  in  Ilushwortu,  ii-  214. 


24  HAMPDEX'S   REFUSAL   TO  PAY.  CHAP.  VIII. 

question  solemnly  before  them,  that  the  liberties  of  their 
country  might  at  least  not  perish  silently,  nor  those  who  had 
betrayed  them  avoid  the  responsibility  of  a  public  avowal  of 
their  shame.  The  first  that  resisted  was  the  gallant  Richard 
Chambers,  who  brought  an  action  against  the  lord-mayor  for 
imprisoning  him  on  account  of  his  refusal  to  pay  his  assess 
ment  on  the  former  writ.  The  magistrate  pleaded  the  writ 
as  a  special  justification  ;  when  Berkley,  one  of  the  judges  of 
the  king's  bench,  declared  that  there  was  a  rule  of  law  and 
a  rule  of  government,  that  many  things  which  could  not  be 
done  by  the  first  rule  might  be  done  by  the  other,  and  would 
not  suffer  counsel  to  argue  against  the  lawfulness  of  ship- 
money.1  The  next  were  lord  Say  and  Mr.  Ilampden,  both 
of  whom  appealed  to  the  justice  of  their  country  ;  but  the 
famous  decision  which  has  made  the  latter  so  illustrious  put 
an  end  to  all  attempts  at  obtaining  redress  by  course  of  law. 
Hampden,  it  seems  hardly  necessary  to  mention,  was  a 
Ham  derrs  gentleman  of  good  estate  in  Buckinghamshire, 
refusal  to  whose  assessment  to  the  contribution  for  ship- 
money  demanded  from  his  county  amounted  only 
to  twenty  shillings.2  The  cause,  though  properly  belonging 
to  the  court  of  exchequer,  was  heard,  on  account  of  its  mag 
nitude,  before  all  the  judges  in  the  exchequer-chamber.3 
The  precise  question,  so  far  as  related  to  Mr.  Ilampden, 
was,  Whether  the  king  had  a  right,  on  his  own  allegation  of 
public  danger,  to  require  an  inland  county  to  furnish  ships, 
or  a  prescribed  sum  of  money  by  way  of  commutation,  for 
the  defence  of  the  kingdom  ?  It  was  argued  by  St.  John  and 

1  Rushworth,   253.     The   same   judge  set   down  for  31s.  6<7..  and  is  returned, 
declared  afterwards,  in  a  charge  to  the  with  many  others,  as  refusing   to   pay. 
grand    jury   of  York,   that    ship-money  Memoirs  of   Han.pden    and    his   Times, 
was  an  inseparable  flower  of  the  crown,  vol.  i.  p.  230.     But  the  suit  in  the  ex- 
glancing  at  Hutton  and  Croke  for  their  chequer  was  not  on  account  of  this  de- 
opposition  to  it.     Id.  267.  mand,  but  for  20s.,  as  stated  in  the  text, 

2  As   it   is   impossible  to  reconcile  the  due   for  property  situate  in  the    parish 
trifling    amount  of    this    demand  with  of  Stoke  Mandevile.      This  explains  the 
Hampden's  known  estate,  the  tax  being  smallness  of    the    sum    immediately   in 
probably  not  much  less  than  sixpence  in  question :  it  was  assessed  only  on  a  por- 
the  pound,  it  has  been  conjectured  that  tion  of  Hampden's  lands.     1845.] 

his  property  was  purposely   rated   low.  a  There  seems  to  have  been  something 

But  it  is  hard  to  perceive  any  motive  for  unusual,  if  not  irregular,  in  this  part  of 

this  indulgence  ;  and  it  seems  more  likely  the  proceeding.     The  barons  of  the  ex- 

that  a  nominal  sum  was  fixed  upon,  in  chequer  called  in   the  other  judges,  not 

order  to  try  the  question;  or  that  it  was  only  by  way  of  advice  but  direction,  as 

only  assessed  on  a  part  of  his  estate.  the  chief  baron   declares.     State  Trials, 

[  Lord    Nugent   has    published  a  fac-  1203.     And  a  proof  of  this  is,  that,  the 

simile  of  the  return  made  by  the  asses-  court  of  exchequer  being  equally  divided, 

sors  of    ship-money   for   the    parish   of  no  judgment  could  have  been  given  by 

Great  Kknble,  wherein  Mr.  Hampden  is  the  barons  alone. 


CHA.  I.  — 1629-40.      ARGUMENTS   OX   THE  CASE.  25 

Holborne  in   behalf  of  Hampden  ;  by  the   solicitor-general 
Littleton  and  the  attorney-general  Banks  for  the  crown.1 

The  law  and  constitution  of  England,  the  former  main 
tained,  had  provided  in  various  ways  for  the  Arguments 
public  safety  and  protection  against  enemies.  °u  the  case- 
First,  there  were  the  military  tenures,  which  bound  great 
part  of  the  kingdom  to  a  stipulated  service  at  the  charge  of 
the  possessors.  The  cinque  ports  also,  and  several  other 
towns,  some  of  them  not  maritime,  held  by  a  tenure  analo 
gous  to  this  ;  and  were  bound  to  furnish  a  quota  of  ships  or 
men  as  the  condition  of  their  possessions  and  privileges. 
These  for  the  most  part  are  recorded  in  Domesday-book, 
though  now  in  general  grown  obsolete.  Next  to  this  specific 
service,  our  constitution  had  bestowed  on  the  sovereign  his 
certain  revenues,  the  fruits  of  tenure,  the  profits  of  his  vari 
ous  minor  prerogatives  ;  whatever,  in  short,  he  held  in  right 
of  his  crown  was  applicable,  so  far  as  it  could  be  extended, 
to  the  public  use.  It  bestowed  on  him,  moreover,  and  per 
haps  with  more  special  application  to  maritime  purposes,  the 
customs  on  importation  of  merchandise.  These  indeed  had 
been  recently  augmented  far  beyond  ancient  usage.  "  For 
these  modern  impositions,"  says  St.  John,  "  of  the  legality 
thereof  I  intend  not  to  speak  ;  for  in  case  his  majesty  may 
impose  upon  merchandise  what  himself  pleaseth,  there  will 
be  less  cause  to  tax  the  inland  counties  ;  and  in  case  he  can 
not  do  it,  it  will  be  strongly  presumed  that  he  can  much  less 
tax  them." 

But  as  the  ordinary  revenues  might  prove  quite  unequal 
to  great  exigencies,  the  constitution  has  provided  another 
means  as  ample  and  sufficient  as  it  is  lawful  and  regular  — 
parliamentary  supply.  To  this  the  kings  of  England  have 
in  all  times  had  recourse  ;  yet  princes  are  not  apt  to  ask  as  a 
concession  what  they  might  demand  of  right.  The  frequent 
loans  and  benevolences  which  they  have  required,  though 
not  always  defensible  by  law,  are  additional  proofs  that  they 
possessed  no  general  right  of  taxation.  To  borrow  on 
promise  of  repayment,  to  solicit,  as  it  were,  alms  from  their 
subjects,  is  not  the  practice  of  sovereigns  whose  prerogatives 
entitle  them  to  exact  money.  Those  loans  had  sometimes 
been  repaid  expressly  to  discharge  the  king's  conscience. 
And  a  very  arbitrary  prince,  Henry  VIII.,  had  obtained 

i  State  Trials,  iii.  826-1252. 


2G  ARGUMENTS   ON   THE  CASE.  CHAP.  VIII. 

acts  of  parliament  to  release  him  from  the  obligation  of  re 
payment. 

These  merely  probable  reasonings  prepare  the  way  for 
that  conclusive  and  irresistible  argument  that  was  founded  on 
statute  law.  Passing  slightly  over  the  charter  of  the  Con 
queror,  that  his  subjects  shall  hold  their  lands  free  from  all 
unjust  tallage,  and  the  clause  in  John's  Magua  Charta,  that 
no  aid  or  scutage  should  be  assessed  but  by  consent  of  the 
great  council  (a  provision  not  repeated  in  that  of  Henry 
III.),  the  advocates  of  Hampden  relied  on  the  25  E.  I.,  com 
monly  called  the  Confirmatio  Chartarum,  which  forever 
abrogated  all  taxation  without  consent  of  parliament ;  and 
this  statute  itself  they  endeavored  to  prove  was  grounded  on 
requisitions  very  like  the  present,  for  the  custody  of  the  seal 
which  Edward  had  issued  the  year  before.  Hence  it  was 
evident  that  the  saving  contained  in  that  act  for  the  ac 
customed  aids  and  prizes  could  not  possibly  be  intended,  as 
the  opposite  counsel  would  suggest,  to  preserve  such  exac 
tions  as  ship-money,  but  related  to  the  established  feudal 
aids,  and  to  the  ancient  customs  on  merchandise.  They 
dwelt  less,  however  (probably  through  fear  of  having  this 
exception  turned  against  them),  on  this  important  statute 
than  on  one  of  more  celebrity,  but  of  very  equivocal  genu 
ineness,  denominated  De  Tallagio  non  Concedendo,  which  is 
nearly  in  the  same  words  as  the  Confirmatio  Chartarum,  with 
the  omission  of  the  above-mentioned  saving.  More  than  one 
Lav  enacted  under  Edward  III.  reasserts  the  necessity  of 
parliamentary  consent  to  taxation.  It  was  indeed  the  sub 
ject  of  frequent  remonstrance  in  that  reign,  and  the  king 
often  infringed  this  right.  But  the  perseverance  of  the  com 
mons  was  successful,  and  ultimately  rendered  the  practice 
conformable  to  the  law.  In  the  second  year  of  Richard  II., 
the  realm  being  in  imminent  danger  of  invasion,  the  privy 
council  convoked  an  assembly  of  peers  and  other  great  men, 
probably  with  a  view  to  avoid  the  summoning  of  a  parliament. 
This  assembly  lent  their  own  money,  but  declared  that  they 
could  not  provide  a  remedy  without  charging  the  commons, 
which  could  not  be  done  out  of  parliament,  advising  that 
one  should  be  speedily  summoned.  This  precedent  was  the 
more  important  as  it  tended  to  obviate  that  argument  from 
peril  and  necessity  on  which  the  defenders  of  ship-money 
were  wont  to  rely.  But  they  met  that  specious  plea  more 


CHA.  I.  — 1629-40.          CASE   OF  HAMPDEN.  27 

directly.  They  admitted  that  a  paramount  overruling  ne 
cessity  silences  the  voice  of  law  ;  that  in  actual  invasion, 
or  its  immediate  prospect,  the  rights  of  private  men  must 
yield  to  the  safety  of  the  whole  ;  that  not  only  the  sovereign, 
but  each  man  in  respect  of  his  neighbor,  might  do  many 
things  absolutely  illegal  at  other  seasons ;  and  this  served  to 
distinguish  the  present  case  from  some  strong  acts  of  prerog 
ative  exerted  by  Elizabeth  in  1588,  when  the  liberties  and 
religion  of  the  people  were  in  the  most  apparent  jeopardy. 
But  here  there  was  no  overwhelming  danger ;  the  nation 
was  at  peace  with  all  the  world  :  could  the  piracies  of  Turk 
ish  corsairs,  or  even  the  insolence  of  rival  neighbors,  be  reck 
oned  among  those  instant  perils  for  which  a  parliament  would 
provide  too  late  ? 

To  the  precedents  alleged  on  the  other  side  it  was  replied, 
that  no  one  of  them  met  the  case  of  an  inland  county ;  that 
such  as  were  before  the  25  E.  I.  were  sufficiently  repelled 
by  that  statute,  such  as  occurred  under  Edward  III.  by  the 
later  statutes,  and  by  the  remonstrances  of  parliament  dur 
ing  his  reign  ;  and  there  were  but  very  few  afterwards.  But 
that,  in  a  matter  of  statute  law,  they  ought  not  to  be  gov 
erned  by  precedents,  even  if  such  could  be  adduced.  Before 
the  latter  end  of  Edward  I.'s  reign,  St.  John  observes,  "  All 
things  concerning  the  king's  prerogative  and  the  subjects' 
liberties  were  upon  uncertainties."  "  The  government," 
says  Ilolborne  truly,  "  was  more  of  force  than  law."  And 
this  is  unquestionably  applicable,  in  a  less  degree,  to  many 
later  ages. 

Lastly,  the  Petition  of  Right,  that  noble  legacy  of  a  slan 
dered  parliament,  reciting  and  confirming  the  ancient  stat 
utes,  had  established  that  no  man  thereafter  be  compelled 
to  make  or  yield  any  gift,  loan,  benevolence,  tax,  or  such 
like  charge,  without  common  consent  by  act  of  parliament. 
This  latest  and  most  complete  recognition  must  sweep  away 
all  contrary  precedent,  and  could  not,  without  a  glaring  vio 
lation  of  its  obvious  meaning,  be  stretched  into  an  admis 
sion  of  ship-money. 

The  king's  counsel,  in  answer  to  these  arguments,  ap 
pealed  to  that  series  of  records  which  the  diligence  of  iSoy 
had  collected.  By  far  the  greater  part  of  these  were  com 
missions  of  array.  But  several,  even  of  those  addressed 
to  inland  towns  (and,  if  there  were  no  service  by  tenure  in 


28  CASE  OF  HAMPDEX.  CHAP.  VIII. 

the  case,  it  does  not  seem  easy  to  distinguish  these  in  prin 
ciple  from  counties),  bore  a  very  strong  analogy  to  the  pres 
ent.  They  were,  however,  in  early  times.  No  sufficient 
answer  could  be  offered  to  the  statutes  that  had  prohibited 
unparliamentary  taxation.  The  attempts  made  to  elude 
their  force  were  utterly  ineffectual,  as  those  who  are  acquaint 
ed  with  their  emphatic  language  may  well  conceive.  But 
the  council  of  Charles  L,  and  the  hirelings  who  ate  their 
bread,  disdained  to  rest  their  claim  of  ship-money  (big  as  it 
was  with  other  and  still  more  novel  schemes)  on  obscure 
records,  or  on  cavils  about  the  meaning  of  statutes.  They 
resorted  rather  to  the  favorite  topic  of  the  times,  the  intrin 
sic,  absolute  authority  of  the  king.  This  the  attorney-gen 
eral  Banks  placed  in  the  very  front  of  his  argument.  "  This 
power,"  says  lie,  "  is  innate  in  the  person  of  an  absolute  king, 
and  in  the  persons  of  the  kings  of  England.  All  magistracy 
it  is  of  nature,  and  obedience  and  subjection  it  is  of  nature. 
This  power  is  not  any  ways  derived  from  the  people,  but  re 
served  unto  the  king  when  positive  laws  first  began.  For 
the  king  of  England  he  is  an  absolute  monarch ;  nothing 
can  be  given  to  an  absolute  prince  but  what  is  inherent 
in  his  person.  He  can  do  no  wrong.  He  is  the  sole 
judge,  and  we  ought  not  to  question  him.  Where  the 
law  trusts  we  ought  not  to  distrust.  The  acts  of  parlia 
ment,"  he  observed,  "contained  no  express  words  to  take 
away  so  high  a  prerogative  ;  and  the  king's  prerogative, 
even  in  lesser  matters,  is  always  saved  wherever  express 
words  do  not  restrain  it." 

But  this  last  argument  appearing  too  modest  for  some  of 
the  judges  who  pronounced  sentence  in  this  cause,  they  de 
nied  the  power  of  parliament  to  limit  the  high  prerogatives 
of  the  crown.  "  This  imposition  without  parliament,"  says 
Justice  Crawley,  "  appertains  to  the  king  originally,  and  to 
the  successor  ipso  facto,  if  he  be  a  sovereign  in  right  of  his 
sovereignty  from  the  crown.  You  cannot  have  a  king  with 
out  these  royal  rights,  no,  not  by  act  of  parliament."  "  Where 
Mr.  Holborne,"  says  Justice  Berkley,  "'  supposed  a  funda 
mental  policy  in  the  creation  of  the  frame  of  this  kingdom, 
that,  in  case  the  monarch  of  England  should  be  inclined  to 
exact  from  his  subjects  at  his  pleasure,  he  should  be  re 
strained,  for  that  he  could  have  nothing  from  them  but  upon 
a  common  consent  in  parliament,  he  is  utterly  mistaken 


CHA.  I.  — 1629-40.      DECISION   OF   THE  JUDGES.  29 

herein.  The  law  knows  no  such  king-yoking  policy.  The 
law  is  itself  an  old  and  trusty  servant  of  the  king's  ;  it  is  his 
instrument  or  means  which  he  useth  to  govern  his  people 
by  :  I  never  read  nor  heard  that  lex  was  rex  ;  but  it  is  com 
mon  and  most  true  that  rex  is  lex."  Yen  ion,  another  judge, 
gave  his  opinion  in  few  words :  u  That  the  king,  pro  bono 
publico,  may  charge  liis  subjects  for  the  safety  and  defence 
of  the  kingdom  notwithstanding  any  act  of  parliament,  and 
that  a  statute  derogatory  from  the  prerogative  doth  not  bind 
the  king  ;  and  the  king  may  dispense  with  any  law  in  cases 
of  necessity."  Finch,  the  adviser  of  the  ship-money,  was 
not  backward  to  employ  the  same  argument  in  its  behalf. 
"  No  act  of  parliament,"  he  told  them,  "  could  bar  a  king  of 
his  regality,  as  that  no  land  should  hold  of  him,  or  bar  him 
of  the  allegiance  of  his  subjects  or  the  relative  on  his  part, 
as  trust  and  power  to  defend  his  people  ;  therefore  acts  of 
parliament  to  take  away  his  royal  power  in  the  defence  of 
his  kingdom  are  void  ;  they  are  void  acts  of  parliament  to 
bind  the  king  not  to  command  the  subjects,  their  persons, 
and  goods,  and  I  say  their  money  too  ;  for  no  acts  of  parlia 
ment  make  any  difference." 

Seven  of  the  twelve  judges,  namely,  Finch,  chief-justice 
of  the  common  pleas,  Jones,  Berkley,  Vernon,  Crawley,  Tre 
vor,  and  AVeston,  gave  judgment  for  the  crown.  Bramp- 
ston,  chief-justice  of  the  king's  bench,  and  Davenport,  chief- 
baron  of  the  exchequer,  pronounced  for  Hampden,  but  on 
technical  reasons,  and  adhering  to  the  majority  on  the  prin 
cipal  question.  Denham,  another  judge  of  the  same  court, 
being  extremely  ill,  gave  a  short  written  judgment  in  favor 
of  liampden.  But  justices  Croke  and  Ilutton,  men  of 
considerable  reputation  and  experience,  displayed  a  most 
praiseworthy  intrepidity  in  denying,  without  the  smallest 
qualification,  the  alleged  prerogative  of  the  crown  and  the 
lawfulness  of  the  writ  for  ship-money.  They  had  unfortu 
nately  signed,  along  with  the  other  judges,  the  above-men 
tioned  opinion  in  favor  of  the  right.  For  this  they  made 
the  best  apology  they  could,  that  their  voice  was  concluded 
by  the  majority.  But  in  truth  it  was  the  ultimate  success 
that  sometimes  attends  a  struggle  between  conscience  and 
self-interest  or  timidity.1 

1  Croke,  who?e  conduct  on  the  bench     out  blemish,  had  resolved  to  jrivc  judg- 
in  other  political  questions  was  not  with-     meut  for  the  king,  but  was  withheld  by 


30  EFFECTS    OF   THE  DECISION.  CHAP.  VIII. 

The  length  to  which  this  important  cause  was  protracted, 
six  months  having  elapsed  from  the  opening  speech  of  Mr. 
Hampden's  council  to  the  final  judgment,  was  of  infinite  dis 
service  to  the  crown.  During  this  long  period  every  man's 
attention  was  directed  to  the  exchequer-chamber.  The  con 
vincing  arguments  of  St.  John  and  Holborne,  but  still  more 
the  division  on  the  bench,  increased  their  natural  repug 
nance  to  so  unusual  and  dangerous  a  prerogative.1  Those 
who  had  trusted  to  the  faith  of  the  judges  were  undeceived  by 
the  honest  repentance  of  some,  and  looked  with  indignation 
on  so  prostituted  a  crew.  That  respect  for  courts  of  justice 
which  the  happy  structure  of  our  judicial  administration 
has  in  general  kept  inviolate  was  exchanged  for  distrust,  con 
tempt,  and  desire  of  vengeance.  They  heard  the  speeches  of 
some  of  the  judges  with  more  displeasure  than  even  their 
final  decision.  Ship-money  was  held  lawful  by  Finch  and  sev 
eral  other  judges,  not  on  the  authority  of  precedents,  which 
must  in  their  nature  have  some  bounds,  but  on  principles 
subversive  of  any  property  or  privilege  in  the  subject.  Those 
paramount  rights  of  monarchy,  to  which  they  appealed  to 
day  in  justification  of  ship-money,  might  to-morrow  serve  to 
supersede  other  laws,  and  maintain  new  exertions  of  des 
potic  power.  It  was  manifest  by  the  whole  strain  of  the 
court  lawyers  that  no  limitations  on  the  king's  authority 
could  exist  but  by  the  king's  sufferance.  This  alarming 
tenet,  long  bruited  among  the  churchmen  and  courtiers,  now 
resounded  in  the  halls  of  justice.  But  ship-money,  in  conse 
quence,  was  paid  with  far  less  regularity  and  more  reluc 
tance  than  before.2  The  discontent  that  had  been  tolerably 
smothered  was  now  displayed  in  every  county  ;  and  though 
the  council  did  not  flinch  in  the  least  from  exacting  payment, 
nor  willingly  remit  any  part  of  its  rigor  towards  the  uncom- 

his  wife,  who  implored  him  not  to  sacri-  in  a  great  deal  more  slowly  than  they  did 

fice  his  conscience  for  fear  of  any  danger  in  former  years,  and  that  to  a  very  con- 

or  prejudice  to  his  family,  being  content  siderahlo  sum .    Thirdly,  it  puts  thoughts 

tosufferany  misery  with  him,  rather  than  into    wise    and   moderate    men's    heads 

to  be  an  occasion  for  him  to  violate  his  which  were  better  out ;  for  they  think,  if 

integrity.     Whitelock,    p.  25.      Of  such  the    judges,  which   are  behind,  do    not 

high-minded   and   inflexible  women   our  their  parts  both  exceeding  well  and  thor- 

British  history  produces  many  examples,  oughly,  it  may  much  distemper  this  ex- 

i  Laud  writes  to  Lord  Wentworth,  that  traordinary  and  great  service."      Straf- 

Croke  and  Hutton  had  both  gone  against  ford  Letters,  ii.  170. 

the  king  very  sourly.     "  The  accidents        '•>  It  is  notoriously  known  that  pressure 

which  have  followed"  upon  it  already  are  was  borne  with  much  more  cheerfulness 

these:  First,  the  faction  are  grown  very  before  the  judgment  for  the  king  than 

bold.     Secondly,  the  king's  moneys  come  ever  it  was  after.     Clarendon,  p.  122. 


CHA.  L  — 1029-40.  PROCLAMATIONS.  31 

plying,  it  was  impossible  either  to  punish  the  great  body  of 
the  country  gentlemen  and  citizens,  or  to  restrain  their  mur 
murs  by  a  few  examples.  Whether  in  consequence  of  this 
unwillingness,  or  for  other  reasons,  the  revenue  levied  in  dif 
ferent  years  under  the  head  of  ship-money  is  more  fluctuat 
ing  than  we  should  expect  from  a  fixed  assessment ;  but  may 
be  reckoned  at  an  average  sum  of  200,000/.1 

It  would  doubtless  be  unfair  to  pass  a  severe  censure  on 
the  government  of  Charles  I.  for  transgressions  prociama- 
of  law  which  a  long  course  of  precedents  might  tions- 
render  dubious,  or  at  least  extenuate.  But  this  common 
apology  for  his  administration,  on  which  the  artful  defence 
of  Hume  is  almost  entirely  grounded,  must  be  admitted  cau 
tiously,  and  not  until  we  have  well  considered  how  far  such 
precedents  could  be  brought  to  support  it.  This  is  particu 
larly  applicable  to  his  proclamations.  I  have  already  pointed 
out  the  comparative  novelty  of  these  unconstitutional  ordi 
nances,  and  their  great  increase  under  James.  They  had 
not  been  fully  acquiesced  in ;  the  commons  had  remonstra 
ted  against  their  abuse;  and  Coke,  with  other  judges,  had 
endeavored  to  fix  limits  to  their  authority  very  far  within 
that  which  they  arrogated.  It  can  hardly,  therefore,  be  said 
that  Charles's  council  were  ignorant  of  their  illegality  ;  nor 
is  the  case  at  all  parallel  to  that  of  general  warrants,  or  any 
similar  irregularity  into  which  an  honest  government  may 
inadvertently  be  led.  They  serve  at  least  to  display  the 
practical  state  of  the  constitution,  and  the  necessity  of  an 
entire  reform  in  its  spirit. 

The  proclamations  of  Charles's  reign  are  far  more  numer 
ous  than  those  of  his  father.     They  imply  a  pre-  v    iou, 
rogative  of  intermeddling  with  all  matters  of  trade,  arbitrary 
prohibiting  or  putting   under  restraint  the  impor-  pr0( 
tation  of  various  articles,  and  the  home  growth  of  others,  or 
establishing  regulations  for  manufactures.2     Prices  of  several 
minor  articles  were  fixed  by  proclamation  ;  and  in  one  in 
stance  this  was  extended  to  poultry,  butter,  and  coals.3     The 
king  declares  by  a  proclamation  that  he  had  incorporated  all 

i  Rushworth  Abr.  ii.  341;  Clarendon  mention  some  of  these.  The  best  turkey 

State  Papers,  i.  tiUO.  It  is  said  by  Heylin  was  to  be  sold  at  4s.  6'/. ;  the  best  goose 

that  the  clergy  were  nmch  spared  in  the  at  2.s  4r/.  ;  the  best  pullet  Is.  8'/.  ;  three 

assessment  of  ship-money  :  Life  of  Laud,  eggs  for  a  penny  ;  fresh  butter  at  5'/.  in 

302.  summer  and  6rf.  iu  winter.  This  was  in 

-  Rymer,  passim.  1634. 

a  Id.  xix.  512      It  may  be  curious  to 


32  ARBITRARY  PROCEEDINGS  CHAP.  VIII. 

tradesmen  and  artificers  within  London  and  three  miles 
round  ;  so  that  no  person  might  set  up  any  trade  without 
having  served  a  seven  years'  apprenticeship,  and  without 
admission  into  such  corporation.1  He  prohibits,  in  like  man 
ner,  any  one  from  using  the  trade  of  a  maltster  or  that  of  a 
brewer  without  admission  into  the  corporations  of  maltsters 
or  brewers  erected  for  every  county.2  I  know  not  whether 
these  projects  were  in  any  degree  founded  on  the  alleged 
pretext  of  correcting  abuses,  or  were  solely  designed  to  raise 
money  by  means  of  these  corporations.  We  find,  however, 
a  revocation  of  the  restraint  on  malting  and  brewing  soon 
after.  The  illegality  of  these  proclamations  is  most  unques 
tionable. 

The  rapid  increase  of  London  continued  to  disquiet  the 
court.  It  was  the  stronghold  of  political  and  religious  dis 
affection.  Hence  the  prohibitions  of  erecting  new  houses, 
which  had  begun  under  Elizabeth,  were  continually  repeat 
ed.3  They  had  indeed  some  laudable  objects  in  view  ;  to 
render  the  city  more  healthy,  cleanly,  and  magnificent,  and 
by  prescribing  the  general  use  of  brick  instead  of  wood,  as 
well  as  by  improving  the  width  and  regularity  of  the  streets, 
to  afford  the  best  security  against  fires,  and  against  those 
epidemical  diseases  which  visited  the  metropolis  with  un 
usual  severity  in  the  earlier  years  of  this  reign.  The  most 
jealous  censor  of  royal  encroachments  will  hardly  object  to 
the  proclamations  enforcing  certain  regulations  of  police  in 
some  of  those  alarming  seasons. 

It  is  probable,  from  the  increase  which  we  know  to  have 
taken  place  in  London  during  this  reign,  that  licenses  for 
building  were  easily  obtained.  The  same  supposition  is  ap 
plicable  to  another  class  of  proclamation,  enjoining  all  persons 
who  had  residences  in  the  country  to  quit  the  capital  and  re 
pair  to  them.4  Yet,  that  these  were  not  always  a  dead  letter 
appears  from  an  information  exhibited  in  the  star-chamber 
against  seven  lords,  sixty  knights,  and  one  hundred  esquires, 
besides  many  ladies,  for  disobeying  the  king's  proclamation, 

1  Rymer.  xx.  113.  ers.     It  recites  the  care  of  Elizabeth  and 

2  Id.  157.  James  to  have  the  city  built  in  an  uni- 

3  Id.  xviii.  33.  et  alibi.     A  commission  form   manner   with   brick,    and   also    to 
was  granted  to  the  earl  of  Arundel  and  clear  it  from  under-tenants  and  basepeo- 
others,    May  30,   1625,  to   inquire  what  pie  who  live  by  begging  and  stealing.   Id. 
houses,  shops,   &c.,  had  been  built  for  xviii.  97. 

ten  years  past,  especially  since  the  last        4  Id.  xix.  375. 
proclamation,  and  to  commit  the  offend- 


CIIA.  I. —  1029-40.  OF   THE   CROWN.  33 

either  by  continuing  in  London  or  returning  to  it  after  a 
short  absence.1  The  result  of  this  prosecution,  which  was 
probably  only  intended  to  keep  them  in  check,  does  not  ap 
pear.  No  proclamation  could  stand  in  need  of  support  from 
law  while  this  arbitrary  tribunal  assumed  a  right  of  punish 
ing  misdemeanors.  It  would  have  been  a  dangerous  aggra 
vation  of  any  delinquent's  offence  to  have  questioned  the 
authority  of  a  proclamation,  or  the  jurisdiction  of  the  council. 
The  security  of  freehold  rights  had  been  the  peculiar 
boast  of  the  English  law.  The  very  statute  of  Henry  VIII., 
which  has  been  held  up  to  so  much  infamy,  while  it  gave  the 
force  of  law  to  his  proclamations,  interposed  its  barrier  in 
defence  of  the  subject's  property.  The  name  of  freeholder, 
handed  down  with  religious  honor  from  an  age  when  it  con 
veyed  distinct  privileges,  and  as  it  were  a  sort  of  popular 
nobility,  protected  the  poorest  man  against  the  crown's  and 
the  lord's  rapacity.  He  at  least  was  recognized  as  the  liber 
homo  of  Magna  Charta,  who  could  not  be  disseised  of  his  ten 
ements  and  franchises.  His  house  was  his  castle,  which  the 
law  respected,  and  which  the  king  dared  not  enter.  Even 
the  public  good  must  give  way  to  his  obstinacy  ;  nor  had  the 
legislature  itself  as  yet  compelled  any  man  to  part  with  his 
lands  for  a  compensation  which  he  was  loath  to  accept.  The 
council  and  star-chamber  had  very  rarely  presumed  to  med 
dle  with  his  right;  never  perhaps  where  it  was  acknowl 
edged  and  ancient.  But  now  this  reverence  of  the  common 
law  for  the  sacredness  of  real  property  was  derided  by  those 
who  revered  nothing  as  sacred  but  the  interests  of  the  church 
and  crown.  The  privy  council,  on  a  suggestion  that  the 
demolition  of  some  houses  and  shops  in  the  vicinity  of  St. 
Paul's  would  show  the  cathedral  to  more  advantage,  directed 
that  the  owners  should  receive  such  satisfaction  as  should  seem 
reasonable  ;  or,  on  their  refusal,  the  sheriff  was  required  to 
see  the  buildings  pulled  down,  "  it  not  being  thought  fit 
the  obstinacy  of  those  persons  should  hinder  so  considera 
ble  a  work."2  By  another  order  of  council,  scarcely  less 
oppressive  and  illegal,  all  shops  in  Cheapside  and  Lombard 
Street,  except  those  of  goldsmiths,  were  directed  to  be  shut 
up,  that  the  avenue  to  St.  Paul's  might  appear  more  splen 
did;  and  the  mayor  and  aldermen  were  repeatedly  threat 
ened  for  remissness  in  executing  this  mandate  of  tyranny.8 

i  Rushworth  Abr.  ii.  232.  2  id.  ii.  79.  3  Id.  p.  313. 

VOL.   II.  3 


34  ARBITRARY   PROCEEDINGS.  CHAP.  VIII. 

In  the  great  plantation  of  Ulster  by  James,  the  city  of 
London  had  received  a  grant  of  extensive  lands  in  the  coun 
ty  of  Deny,  on  certain  conditions  prescribed  in  their  charter. 
The  settlement  became  flourishing,  and  enriched  the  city. 
But  the  wealth  of  London  was  always  invidious  to  the 
crown,  as  well  as  to  the  needy  courtiers.  On  an  informa 
tion  filed  in  the  star-chamber  for  certain  alleged  breaches  of 
their  charter,  it  was  not  only  adjudged  to  be  forfeited  to  the 
king,  but  a  fine  of  70,000/.  was  imposed  on  the  city.  They 
paid  this  enormous  mulct ;  but  were  kept  out  of  their  lands 
till  restored  by  the  long  parliament.1  In  this  proceeding 
Charles  forgot  his  duty  enough  to  take  a  very  active  share, 
personally  exciting  the  court  to  give  sentence  for  himself.'2 
Is  it  then  to  be  a  matter  of  surprise  or  reproach  that  the  cit 
izens  of  London  refused  him  assistance  in  the  Scottish  war, 
and  through  the  ensuing  times  of  confusion  harbored  an  im 
placable  resentment  against  a  sovereign  who  had  so  deeply 
injured  them? 

We  may  advert  in  this  place  to  some  other  stretches  of 
power,  which  no  one  can  pretend  to  justify,  though  in  gen 
eral  they  seem  to  have  escaped  notice  amidst  the  enormous 
mass  of  national  grievances.  A  commission  was  issued  in 
1635  to  the  recorder  of  London  and  others,  to  examine  all 
persons  going  beyond  seas,  and  tender  to  them  an  oath  of 
the  most  inquisitorial  nature.3  Certain  privy  councillors 
were  empowered  to  enter  the  house  of  sir  Robert  Cotton, 
and  search  his  books,  records,  and  papers,  setting  down  such 
as  ought  to  belong  to  the  crown.4  This  renders  probable 
what  we  find  in  a  writer  who  had  the  best  means  of  infor 
mation,  that  secretary  Windebank,  by  virtue  of  an  order  of 
council,  entered  sir  Edward  Coke's  house  while  he  lay  on  his 
death-bed,  and  took  away  his  manuscripts,  together  with 
his  last  will,  which  was  never  returned  to  his  family.5 

i  Rushworth  Abr.  iii.  123;  Whitelock,  and  the  reproach  sometimes  thrown  on 

p.  35;   Strafford  Letters,  i.  374,  et  alibi.  England,  of  wanting;  a  fit  mansion  for  its 

See  what  Clarendon  says,  p.  293  (ii.  151,  mouarchs,  would  have  been  prevented. 

edit.  1826).     The  second  of  these  tells  us  But    the  exchequer  of   Charles   I.   had 

that  the  city  offered  to  build  for  the  king  never  been  in  such  a  state  as  to  render  it 

a  palace  in  St.  James's  park  by  way  of  at  all  probable  that  he  could  undertake 

composition,  which  was  refused.     If  this  so  costly  a  work, 

be  true  it  must  allude  to  the  palace  al-  "  Strafford  Letters,  i.  340. 

ready  projected  by  him.  the  magnificent  3  Ryuier,  xix.  699. 

designs  for  which  by  Inigo  Jones  are  well  4  Id.  198. 

known.     Had    they  been  executed    the  5  Roger  Coke's  Detection  of  the  Court 

metropolis  would  have  possessed  a  splen-  of  England,  i.  309.     He  was  sir  Edward's 

did  monument  of  Palladian  architecture ;  grandson. 


CHA.  I.  — 1629-40.     STAR-CHAMBER  JURISDICTION.  35 

The  high-commission  court  were  enabled  by  the  king's 
<k  supreme  power  ecclesiastical "  to  examine  such  as  were 
charged  with  offences  cognizable  by  them  on  oath,  which 
many  had  declined  to  take,  according  to  the  known  maxims 
of  English  law.1 

It  would  be  improper  to  notice  as  illegal  or  irregular 
the  practice  of  granting  dispensations  in  particular  instances, 
either  from  general  acts  of  parliament  or  the  local  statutes 
of  colleges.  Such  a  prerogative,  at  least  in  the  former 
case,  was  founded  on  long  usage  and  judicial  recognition. 
Charles,  however,  transgressed  its  admitted  boundaries  when 
he  empowered  others  to  dispense  with  them  as  there  might 
be  occasion.  Thus,  in  a  commission  to  the  president  and 
council  of  the  North,  directing  them  to  compound  with  re 
cusants,  he  in  effect  suspends  the  statute  which  provides  that 
no  recusant  shall  have  a  lease  of  that  portion  of  his  lands 
which  the  law  sequestered  to  the  king's  use  during  his  re 
cusancy  ;  a  clause  in  this  patent  enabling  the  commissioners 
to  grant  such  leases  notwithstanding  any  law  or  statute  to 
the  contrary.  This  seems  to  go  beyond  the  admitted  limits 
of  the  dispensing  prerogative.2 

The  levies  of  tonnage  and  poundage  without  authority  of 
parliament,  the  exaction  of  monopolies,  the  extension  of  the 
forests,  the  arbitrary  restraints  of  proclamations,  above  all 
the  general  exaction  of  ship-money,  form  the  principal  ar 
ticles  of  charge  against  the  government  of  Charles,  so  far  as 
relates  to  its  inroads  on  the  subject's  property.  These  were 
maintained  by  a  vigilant  and  unsparing  exercise  of  jurisdic 
tion  in  the  court  of  star-chamber.  I  have,  in  another  chap 
ter,  traced  the  revival  of  this  great  tribunal,  probably  under 
Henry  VIII.,  in  at  least  as  formidable  a  shape  as  before  the 
now  neglected  statutes  of  Edward  III.  and  Richard  II., 
which  had  placed  barriers  in  its  way.  It  was  the  great 
weapon  of  executive  power  under  Elizabeth  and  James ; 
nor  can  we  reproach  the  present  reign  with  innovation  in 
this  respect,  though  in  no  former  period  had  the  proceedings 
of  this  court  been  accompanied  with  so  much  violence  and 
tyranny.  But  this  will  require  some  fuller  explication. 

I  hardly  need  remind  the  reader  that  the  juris-  gtar.cham. 
diction  of  the  ancient  Concilium  regis  ordinarium,  ber  juris- 
or  court  of  star-chamber,  continued  to  be  exer- 

i  Rymer,  xx.  190.  2  i<j.  xix.  740.     See  also  82. 


3G  JURISDICTION   OF   THE  CHAP.  VIII. 

cised  more  or  less  frequently,  notwithstanding  the  various  stat 
utes  enacted  to  repress  it ;  and  that  it  neither  was  supported 
by  the  act  erecting  a  new  court  in  the  third  of  Henry  VII., 
nor  originated  at  that  time.  The  records  show  the  star- 
chamber  to  have  taken  cognizance  both  of  civil  suits  and  of 
offences  throughout  the  time  of  the  Tudors.  But  precedents 
of  usurped  power  cannot  establish  a  legal  authority  in  defi 
ance  of  the  acknowledged  law.  It  appears  that  the  lawyers 
did  not  admit  any  jurisdiction  in  the  council,  except  so  far  as 
the  statute  of  Henry  VII.  was  supposed  to  have  given  it. 
"  The  famous  Plowden  put  his  hand  to  a  demurrer  to  a 
bill,"  says  Hudson,  "  because  the  matter  was  not  within  the 
statute  ;  and,  although  it  was  then  overruled,  yet  Mr.  Ser 
geant  Richardson,  thirty  years  after,  fell  again  upon  the  same 
rock,  and  was  sharply  rebuked  for  it." 1  The  chancellor, 
who  was  the  standing  president  of  the  court  of  star-chamber, 
would  always  find  pretences  to  elude  the  existing  statutes, 
and  justify  the  usurpation  of  this  tribunal. 

The  civil  jurisdiction  claimed  and  exerted  by  the  star- 
chamber  was  only  in  particular  cases,  as  disputes  between 
alien  merchants  and  Englishmen,  questions  of  prize  or  un 
lawful  detention  of  ships,  and  in  general  such  as  now  belong 
to  the  court  of  admiralty  ;  some  testamentary  matters,  in 

1  Hudson's  Treatise  of  the  Court  of  He  proceeds  to  inform  us  that  by  search 

Star-Chamber,    p.    51.       This    valuable  into  records  he   traced  its   jurisdiction 

work,  written  about  the  end  of  James's  much  higher.     This  shows,  however,  the 

reign,   is    published    in  Collectanea  Ju-  doubts  entertained  of  its  jurisdiction  in 

ridica,  vol.  ii.     There  is  more  than   one  the  queen's  time.     This  writer,  extolling 

manuscript  of  it  in  the  British  Museum,  the  court  highly,  admits  that  "  some  of 

In  another  treatise,  written  by  a  clerk  late  have  deemed  it  to  be  new,  and  put 

of    the  council    about    1590    (Hargrave  the  same  in  print,  to  the  blemish  of  its 

MSS.   ccxvi.   195),    the    author   says,  —  beautiful  antiquity.-'    He  then  discusses 

"  There  was  a  time  when  there  grew  a  the  question  (for  such  it  seems  it  was), 

controversy    between    the   star-chamber  whether  any    peer,    though   not   of  the 

and  the  king's  bench,  for  their  jurisdic-  council,  might  sit  in  the  star-chamber; 

tion  in   a  cause   of   perjury  concerning  and   decides  in  the  negative.     "Ao.  5to. 

tithes,   sir    Nicholas   Bacon,   that    most  of  her  majesty,"  he  says,  in  the  case  of 

grave  and  worthy  counsellor,  then  being  the   earl   of  Hertford,    ';  there  were  as- 

lord-keeper  of  the  great  seal,  and  sir  Rob-  sembled   a  great   number  of   the    noble 

ert  Catlyu,  knight,  then  lord  chief -justice  barons   of  this  realm,  not  being  of  the 

of  the  bench.     To  the  deciding  thereof  council,  who  offered  there  to  sit;  but  at 

were  called  by  the  plaintiff  and  defendant  that  time  it  was  declared  unto  them  by 

a  gi-eat  number  of  the  learned  counsellors  the  lord-keeper   that   they  were  to  give 

of  the  law :  they  were  called  into  the  in-  place,  and   so   they   did,  and   divers    of 

ner  star-chamber  after  dinner,  where  be-  them  tarried  the  hearing  of  the  cause  at 

fore  the  lords  of  the  council  they  argued  the  bar." 

the  cause  on  both  sides,  but  could  not  This  note  ought  to  have  been  inserted 

find  the  court  of  greater  antiquity  by  all  in  Chapter  I.,  where  the  antiquity  of  the 

their  books  than  Henry  VII.  and  Richard  star-chamber  is  mentioned,  but  was  acci- 

III.     On  this  I  fell  in  cogitation  how  to  dentally  overlooked, 
find  some  further    knowledge   thereof." 


CHA.  I.  — 1629-40.    COURT   OF   STAR-CHAMBER.  37 

order  to  prevent  appeals  to  Rome,  which  might  have  been 
brought  from  the  ecclesiastical  courts  ;  suits  between  corpor 
ations,  "  of  which,"  says  Hudson,  "  I  dare  undertake  to  show 
above  a  hundred  in  the  reigns  of  Henry  VII.  and  Henry 
VIII.,  or  sometimes  between  men  of  great  power  and  in 
terest,  which  could  not  be  tried  with  fairness  by  the  common 
law."  x  For  the  corruption  of  sheriffs  and  juries  furnished 
an  apology  for  the  irregular,  but  necessary,  interference  of  a 
controlling  authority.  The  ancient  remedy,  by  means  of  at 
taint,  which  renders  a  jury  responsible  for  an  unjust  verdict, 
was  almost  gone  into  disuse,  and,  inasmuch  as  it  depended  on 
the  integrity  of  a  second  jury,  not  always  sure  to  be  ob 
tained  ;  so  that  in  many  parts  of  the  kingdom,  and  especially 
in  Wales,  it  was  impossible  to  find  a  jury  who  would  return 
a  verdict  against  a  man  of  good  family,  either  in  a  civil  or 
criminal  proceeding. 

The  statutes,  however,  restraining  the  council's  jurisdic 
tion,  and  the  strong  prepossession  of  the  people  as  to  the 
sacredness  of  freehold  rights,  made  the  star-chamber  cautious 
of  determining  questions  of  inheritance,  which  they  common 
ly  remitted  to  the  judges  ;  and  from  the  early  part  of  Eliza 
beth's  reign  they  took  a  direct  cognizance  of  any  civil  suits 
less  frequently  than  before  ;  partly,  I  suppose,  from  the  in 
creased  business  of  the  court  of  chancery  and  the  admiralty 
court,  which  took  away  much  wherein  they  had  been  wont 
to  meddle  ;  partly  from  their  own  occupation  as  a  court  of 
criminal  judicature,  which  became  more  conspicuous  as  the 
other  went  into  disuse.2  This  criminal  jurisdiction  is  that 
which  rendered  the  star-chamber  so  potent  and  so  odious  an 
auxiliary  of  a  despotic  administration. 

The  offences  principally  cognizable  in  this  court  were 
forgery,  perjury,  riot,  maintenance,  fraud,  libel,  and  conspir 
acy.3  But,  besides  these,  every  misdemeanor  came  within 
the  proper  scope  of  its  inquiry  ;  those  especially  of  public 
importance,  and  for  which  the  law,  as  then  understood,  had 
provided  no  sufficient  punishment.  For  the  judges  interpre 
ted  the  law  in  early  times  with  too  great  narrowness  and 

1  Hudson's   Treatise  of    the  Court  of  king,"  he   says,  il  should  be  sometimes 
Star-Cham ber,  p.  56.  present,  yet  not  too  often."     James  was 

2  P.   62.      Lord   Bacon  observes   that  too   often   present,  and    took   one   well- 
the  council  in  his  time  did  not  meddle  known  criminal  proceeding,  that  against 
with  nieum  and  tuum  as  formerly ;  and  sir  Thomas  Lake  and  his  family,  entirely 
that  such  causes  ouerht  not  to  be  enter-  into  his  own  hands. 

tained.     Vol.  i.  720;  vol.  ii.  208.     -'The        *  P.  82. 


38  STAR-CHAMBER  JURISDICTION.          CHAP.  VIII. 

timidity  ;  defects  which,  on  the  one  hand,  raised  up  the  over 
ruling  authority  of  the  court  of  chancery,  as  the  necessary 
means  of  redress  to  the  civil  suitor  who  found  the  gates  of 
justice  barred  against  him  by  technical  pedantry ;  and,  on 
the  other,  brought  this  usurpation  and  tyranny  of  the  star- 
chamber  upon  the  kingdom  by  an  absurd  scrupulosity 
about  punishing  manifest  offences  against  the  public  good. 
Thus  corruption,  breach  of  trust,  and  malfeasance  in  public 
affairs,  or  attempts  to  commit  felony,  seem  to  have  been 
reckoned  not  indictable  at  common  law,  and  came  in  conse 
quence  under  the  cognizance  of  the  star-chamber.1  In  other 
cases  its  jurisdiction  was  merely  concurrent ;  but  the  greater 
certainty  of  conviction,  and  the  greater  severity  of  punish 
ment,  rendered  it  incomparably  more  formidable  than  the 
ordinary  benches  of  justice.  The  law  of  libel  grew  up  in 
this  unwholesome  atmosphere,  and  was  moulded  by  the 
plastic  hands  of  successive  judges  and  attorneys-general. 
Prosecutions  of  this  kind,  according  to  Hudson,  began  to  be 
more  frequent  from  the  last  years  of  Elizabeth,  when  Coke 
was  attorney-general ;  and  it  is  easy  to  conjecture  what  kind 
of  interpretation  they  received.  To  hear  a  libel  sung  or 
read,  says  that  writer,  and  to  laugh  at  it,  and  make  merri 
ment  with  it,  has  ever  been  held  a  publication  in  law.  The 
gross  error  that  it  is  not  a  libel  if  it  be  true,  has  long  since, 
he  adds,  been  exploded  out  of  this  court.2 

Among  the  exertions  of  authority  practised  in  the  star- 
chamber  which  no  positive  law  could  be  brought  to  warrant, 
he  enumerates  "  punishments  of  breach  of  proclamations  be 
fore  they  have  the  strength  of  an  act  of  parliament ;  which 
this  court  hath  stretched  as  far  as  ever  any  act  of  parliament 
did.  As  in  the  41st  of  Elizabeth  builders  of  houses  in  Lon 
don  were  sentenced,  and  their  houses  ordered  to  be  pulled 
down,  and  the  materials  to  be  distributed  to  the  benefit  of 
the  parish  where  the  building  was  ;  which  disposition  of  the 
goods  soundeth  as  a  great  extremity,  and  beyond  the  war 
rant  of  our  laws  ;  and  yet  surely  very  necessary,  if  anything 
would  deter  men  from  that  horrible  mischief  of  increasing 
that  head  which  is  swoln  to  a  great  hugeness  already."  3 

1  Hudson's    Treatise   of    the  Court  of     information  was   preferred  in   the  star- 
Star-Chamber,  p.  108.  chamber  against  Griffin  and  another  fcr 

2  P.  100,  102.  erecting  a  tenement  in  Hog  Lane,  which 

3  P.   107-      The  following  case  in  the    he  divided  into  several  rooms,  wherein 
queen's   reign  goes  a  great  way  :  —  An    were  inhabiting  two  poor  tenants,  that 


CIIA.  I.  — 1629-40.  PUNISHMENTS.  39 

The  mode  of  process  was  sometimes  of  a  summary  nature  ; 
the  accused  person  being  privately  examined,  and  his  exami 
nation  read  in  the  court,  if  lie  was  thought  to  have  confessed 
sufficient  to  deserve  sentence,  it  was  immediately  awarded 
without  any  formal  trial  or  written  process.  But  the  more 
regular  course  was  by  information  filed  at  the  suit  of  the  at 
torney-general,  or,  in  certain  cases,  of  a  private  relator.  The 
party  was  brought  before  the  court  by  writ  of  subpoena  ;  and 
having  given  bond  with  sureties  not  to  depart  without  leave, 
was  to  put  in  his  answer  upon  oath,  as  well  to  the  matters 
contained  in  the  information,  as  to  special  interrogatories. 
Witnesses  were  examined  upon  interrogatories,  and  their 
depositions  read  in  court.  The  course  of  proceeding  on  the 
whole  seems  to  have  nearly  resembled  that  of  the  chan 
cery.1 

It  was  held  competent  for  the  court  to  adjudge  any  pun 
ishment  short  of  death.  Fine  and  imprisonment 
were  of  course  the  most  usual.  The  pillory, 
whipping,  branding,  and  cutting  off  the  ears,  grew 
into  use  by  degrees.  In  the  reign  of  Henry  VII. 
and  Henry  VIII.,  we  are  told  by  Hudson,  the  fines  were  not 
so  ruinous  as  they  have  been  since,  which  he  ascribes  to  the 
number  of  bishops  who  sat  in  the  court,  and  inclined  to 
mercy  ;  "  and  I  can  well  remember,"  he  says,  u  that  the 
most  reverend  archbishop  Whitgift  did  ever  constantly  main 
tain  the  liberty  of  the  free  charter,  that  men  ought  to  be 
fined,  salvo  contenemento.  But  they  have  been  of  late  im 
posed  according  to  the  nature  of  the  offence,  and  not  the 
estate  of  the  person.  The  slavish  punishment  of  whipping," 
he  proceeds  to  observe,  "  was  not  introduced  till  a  great  man 

only  lived  and  were  maintained  by  the  down  other  habitations  must  be  found, 

relief  of  their  neighbors,  &c.     The  attor-  did  not,  as  requested,  order  this  to   be 

ney  general,  and  also  the  lord  mayor  and  done  for  the  present,  but  that  the  tenants 

aldermen,  prayed  some  condigu  punish-  should  continue  for  their  lives  without 

nient  on  Griffin  and  the  other,  and  that  payment   of   rent,  and   the   landlord    is 

the  court  would  be  pleased  to  set  down  directed  not  to  molest   them,  and  after 

and   decree  some  general    order  in  this  the  death  or  departure  of  the  tenants  the 

and  other  like  cases  of  new  building  and  houses  to  be  pulled  down.     Harl,  MSS. 

division  of  tenements.     Whereupon  the  N.  299,  fol.  7. 

court,   generally   considering    the  great        l  Harl.  MSS.   p.  142.  &c.     It  appears 

growing  evils  and    inconveniences  that  that  the  court  of  star-chamber  could  not 

continually   breed  and    happen  by  this  sentence  to  punishment  on  the  deposition 

new-erected  building  and  divisions  made  of  an  eye-witness  (Rushw.  Abr.  ii.  114) ; 

and  divided    contrary  to   her    majesty's  a  rule  which  did  not  prevent  their  receiv- 

paM  proclamation,  commit  the  offenders  ing  the  most  imperfect  and  inconclusive 

to  t.ic  Fleet,  and  fine  them  2<V.  each;  but  testimony, 
considering   that  if  the  huu.-etf  be  pulled 


40  PUNISHMENTS  INFLICTED  CHAP.  VIII. 

of  the  common  law,  and  otherwise  a  worthy  justice,  forgot 
his  place  of  session,  and  brought  it  in  this  place  too  much  in 
use."  *  It  would  be  difficult  to  find  precedents  for  the  ag 
gravated  cruelties  inflicted  on  Leighton,  Lilburne,  and  others  ; 
but  instances  of  cutting  off  the  ears  may  be  found  under  Eliz 
abeth.2 

The  reproach,  therefore,  of  arbitrary  and  illegal  juris 
diction  does  not  wholly  fall  on  the  government  of  Charles. 
They  found  themselves  in  possession  of  this  almost  unlimited 
authority.  But  doubtless,  as  far  as  the  history  of  proceed 
ings  in  the  star-chamber  are  recorded,  they  seem  much  more 
numerous  and  violent  in  the  present  reign  than  in  the  two 
preceding.  Rush  worth  has  preserved  a  copious  selection  of 
cases  determined  before  this  tribunal.  They  consist  princi 
pally  of  misdemeanors,  rather  of  an  aggravated  nature  ;  such 
as  disturbances  of  the  public  peace,  assaults  accompanied 
with  a  good  deal  of  violence,  conspiracies,  and  libels.  The 
necessity,  however,  for  such  a  paramount  court  to  restrain 
the  excesses  of  powerful  men  no  longer  existed,  since  it  can 
hardly  be  doubted  that  the  common  administration  of  the 
law  was  sufficient  to  give  redress  in  the  time  of  Charles  I. ; 
though  we  certainly  do  find  several  instances  of  violence  and 
outrage  by  men  of  a  superior  station  in  life,  which  speak  un 
favorably  for  the  state  of  manners  in  the  kingdom.  But  the 
object  of  drawing  so  large  a  number  of  criminal  cases  into 
the  star-chamber  seems  to  have  been  twofold :  first,  to  inure 
men's  minds  to  an  authority  more  immediately  connected 
with  the  crown  than  the  ordinary  courts  of  law,  and  less  tied 
down  to  any  rules  of  pleading  or  evidence  ;  secondly,  to  eke 
out  a  scanty  revenue  by  penalties  and  forfeitures.  Absolute 
ly  regardless  of  the  provision  of  the  Great  Charter,  that  no 
man  shall  be  amerced  even  to  the  full  extent  of  his  means, 
the  councillors  of  the  star-chamber  inflicted  such  fines  as  no 
court  of  justice,  even  in  the  present  reduced  value  of  money, 

1  Hudson,  p.  36.  224.    Instead  of  "  the  his  ears.     Harl.  MSS.  6265,  fol.  373.     So 
slavish   punishment   of  whipping."    the  also  the  conspirators  who  accused  arch- 
printed  book  has  "  the  slavish  speech  of  bishop  Sandys  of  adultery.  Id.  376.    And 
whispering,"  which  of  course  entirely  al-  Mr.  Pound,  a  Roman  catholic  gentleman, 
ters  the  sense,  or  rather  makes  nonsense,  who   had   suffered    much   before  for  his 
I  have  followed  a  MS.  in  the   Museum  religion,  was  sentenced  by  that  court,  in 
(Hargrave,  vol.  250),  which  agrees  with  1603,  to  lose  both  his  ears,  to  be  fined 
the  abstract  of  this   treatise   by  Rush-  1000L,  and  imprisoned  for  life,  unless  he 
worth,  ii.  348.  declare   who    instigated    him   to  charge 

2  Vallenger,  author  of  seditious  libels,  sergeant  Philips   with  injustice  in  con- 
was  sentenced  in   the   queen's  reign  to  demning  a  neighbor   of    his    to   death, 
stand  twice  in  the  pillory  and  lose  both  Winwood,  ii.  36. 


CHA.  I.  —  1G29-40.        BY   THE  STAR-CHAMBER.  41 

would  think  of  imposing.  Little  objection  indeed  seems  to 
lie,  in  a  free  country,  and  with  a  well-regulated  administra 
tion  of  justice,  against  the  imposition  of  weighty  pecuniary 
penalties,  due  consideration  being  had  of  the  offence  and  the 
criminal.  But,  adjudged  by  such  a  tribunal  as  the  star- 
chamber,  where  those  who  inflicted  the  punishment  reaped 
the  gain,  and  sat,  like  famished  birds  of  prey,  with  keen  eyes 
and  bended  talons,  eager  to  supply  for  a  moment,  by  some 
wretch's  ruin,  the  craving  emptiness  of  the  exchequer,  this 
scheme  of  enormous  penalties  became  more  dangerous  and 
subversive  of  justice,  though  not  more  odious,  than  corporal 
punishment.  A  gentleman  of  the  name  of  Allington  was 
fined  12,0001.  for  marrying  his  niece.  One  who  had  sent  a 
challenge  to  the  earl  of  Northumberland  was  fined  5000/.  ; 
another  for  saying  the  earl  of  Suffolk  was  a  base  lord,  4000Z. 
to  him,  and  a  like  sum  to  the  king.  Sir  David  Forbes,  for 
opprobrious  words  against  lord  Wentworth,  incurred  5000/. 
to  the  king,  and  3000/.  to  the  party.  On  some  soap-boilers, 
who  had  not  complied  with  the  requisitions  of  the  newly- 
incorporated  company,  mulcts  were  imposed  of  1500/.  and 
1000/.  One  man  was  fined  and  set  in  the  pillory  for  en 
grossing  corn,  though  he  only  kept  what  grew  on  his  own 
land,  asking  more  in  a  season  of  dearth  than  the  overseers 
of  the  poor  thought  proper  to  give.1  Some  arbitrary  reg 
ulations  with  respect  to  prices  may  be  excused  by  a  well- 
intentioned  though  mistaken  policy.  The  charges  of  inns 
and  taverns  were  fixed  by  the  judges.  But  even  in  those  a 
corrupt  motive  was  sometimes  blended.  The  company  of 
vintners,  or  victuallers,  having  refused  to  pay  a  demand  of 
the  lord  treasurer,  one  penny  a  quart  for  all  wine  drunk  in 
their  houses,  the  star-chamber,  without  information  filed  or 
defence  made,  interdicted  them  from  selling  or  dressing  vict 
uals  till  they  submitted  to  pay  forty  shillings  for  each  tun  of 
wine  to  the  king.'2  It  is  evident  that  the  strong  interest  of 
the  court  in  these  fines  must  not  only  have  had  a  tendency 
to  aggravate  the  punishment,  but  to  induce  sentences  of  con- 

i  The  scarcity  must  have  been  very  to  prohibit  them  to  dress  meat ;  some- 
great  this  season  (1631),  for  he  refused  what  was  required  of  them,  a  halfpenny 
21.  18s.  for  the  quarter  of  rye.  Rush-  a  quart  for  French  wiue,  and  a  penny 
worth,  ii.  110.  for  sack  and  other  richer  wines,  for  the 
-  Rushworth,  ii.  340.  Garrard,  the  cor-  king:  the  gentlemen  vintners  grew  sul- 
respondent  of  \Vent\vorth.  who  sent  him  len,  and  would  not  give  it,  so  they  are 
all  London  news,  writes  about  this,  "The  all  well  enough  served."  Stratford  Let- 
attoruey-general  hath  sent  to  all  taverns  ters,  i.  507. 


42  BISHOP   WILLIAMS.  CHAP.  VIII. 

demnation  on  inadequate  proof.  From  all  that  remains  of 
proceedings  in  the  star-chamber,  they  seem  to  have  been 
very  frequently  as  iniquitous  as  they  were  severe.  In  many 
celebrated  instances  the  accused  party  suffered  less  on  the 
score  of  any  imputed  offence  than  for  having  provoked  the 
malice  of  a  powerful  adversary,  or  for  notorious  dissatisfac 
tion  with  the  existing  government.  Thus  Williams,  bishop 
Case  of  of  Lincoln,  once  lord  keeper,  the  favorite  of  king 
bishop  James,  the  possessor  for  a  season  of  the  power 

that  was  turned  against  him,  experienced  the  ran 
corous  and  ungrateful  malignity  of  Laud ;  who,  having  been 
brought  forward  by  Williams  into  the  favor  of  the  court,  not 
only  supplanted  by  his  intrigues,  and  incensed  the  king's 
mind  against  his  benefactor,  but  harassed  his  retirement  by 
repeated  persecutions.1  It  will  sufficiently  illustrate  the  spirit 
of  these  times  to  mention  that  the  sole  offence  imputed  to  the 
bishop  of  Lincoln  in  the  last  information  against  him  in  the 
star-chamber  was,  that  he  had  received  certain  letters  from 
one  Osbaldiston,  master  of  Westminster  school,  wherein  some 
contemptuous  nickname  was  used  to  denote  Laud.2  It  did 
not  appear  that  Williams  had  ever  divulged  these  letters. 
But  it  was  held  that  the  concealment  of  a  libellous  letter  was 
a  high  misdemeanor.  Williams  was  therefore  adjudged  to 
pay  5000/.  to  the  king,  and  3000/.  to  the  archbishop,  to  be 
imprisoned  during  pleasure,  and  to  make  a  submission ;  Os 
baldiston  to  pay  a  still  heavier  fine,  to  be  deprived  of  all  his 
benefices,  to  be  imprisoned  and  make  submission,  and  more 
over  to  stand  in  the  pillory  before  his  school  in  Dean's-yard, 
with  his  ears  nailed  to  it.  This  man  had  the  good  fortune  to 
conceal  himself;  but  the  bishop  of  Lincoln,  refusing  to  make 
the  required  apology,  lay  about  three  years  in  the  Tower, 
till  released  at  the  beginning  of  the  long  parliament. 

It  might  detain  me  too  long  to  dwell  particularly  on  the 
punishments  inflicted  by  the  court  of  star-chamber  in  this 
reign.  Such  historians  as  have  not  written  in  order  to  pal 
liate  the  tyranny  of  Charles,  and  especially  Rushworth,  will 
furnish  abundant  details,  with  all  those  circumstances  that 
portray  the  barbarous  and  tyrannical  spirit  of  those  who 
composed  that  tribunal.  Two  or  three  instances  are  so  cel 
ebrated  that  I  cannot  pass  them  over.  Leighton,  a  Scots 

i  Hacket's    Life  of    Williams.     Rush-        -  Osbaldiston  swore   that  he   did   not 
worth,  Abr.  ii.  315,  et  post.  Brodie,  ii.  363.    mean  Laud  ;  an  undoubted  perjury. 


CHA.  I.  — 1029-40.  PRYNXE.  43 

divine,  having  published  an  angry  libel  against  the  hierar 
chy,  was  sentenced  to  be  publicly  whipped  at  Westminster 
and  set  in  the  pillory,  to  have  one  side  of  his  nose  slit,  one 
ear  cut  off,  and  one  side  of  his  cheek  branded  with  a  hot 
iron,  to  have  the  whole  of  this  repeated  the  next  week  at 
Cheapside,  and  to  suffer  perpetual  imprisonment  in  the  Fleet.1 
Lilburne,  for  dispersing  pamphlets  against  the  bishops,  was 
whipped  from  the  Fleet  prison  to  Westminster,  there  set 
in  the  pillory,  and  treated  afterwards  with  great  cruelty.2 
Pry nne,  a  lawyer  of  uncommon  erudition,  and  a  case  of 
zealous  puritan,  had  printed  a  bulky  volume,  called  Prynne. 
Histriomastix,  full  of  invectives  against  the  theatre,  which 
he  sustained  by  a  profusion  of  learning.  In  the  course  of 
this  he  adverted  to  the  appearance  of  courtesans  on  the  Ro 
man  stage,  and  by  a  satirical  reference  in  his  index  seemed 
to  range  all  female  actors  in  the  class.3  The  queen,  unfor 
tunately,  six  weeks  after  the  publication  of  Prynne's  book, 
had  performed  a  part  in  a  mask  at  court.  This  passage  was 
accordingly  dragged  to  light  by  the  malice  of  Peter  Heylin, 
a  chaplain  of  Laud,  on  whom  the  archbishop  devolved  the 
burden  of  reading  this  heavy  volume  in  order  to  detect  its 
offences.  Heylin,  a  bigoted  enemy  of  everything  puritanical, 
and  not  scrupulous  as  to  veracity,  may  be  suspected  of  hav 
ing  aggravated,  if  not  misrepresented,  the  tendency  of  a  book 
much  more  tiresome  than  seditious.  Prynne,  however,  was 
already  obnoxious,  and  the  star-chamber  adjudged  him  to 
stand  twice  in  the  pillory,  to  be  branded  in  the  forehead,  to 
lose  both  his  ears,  to  pay  a  fine  of  5000/.,  and  to  suffer  per 
petual  imprisonment.  The  dogged  puritan  employed  the 
leisure  of  a  jail  in  writing  a  fresh  libel  against  the  hierar- 

i  Mr.  Brodie  (Hist,  of  Brit.  Emp.,  vol.  star-chamber,  some  of  the  lords  turned 

ii.  p.  309)  observes  that  he  cannot  find  up  his  hair,  and  expressed  great  indigna- 

in  Leighton's  book  (which  I  have  never  tion  that    his    ears  had  not  been  better 

seen)    the    passage    constantly    brought  cropped.     State  Trials,  717.      The  most 

forward  by  Laud's  apologists,  wherein  he  brutal  and  servile  of  these  courtiers  seems 

is   supposed    to  have  recommended  the  to  have  been  the  earl  of  Dorset,  though 

assassination  of  the  bishops.     He  admits,  Clarendon  speaks  well  of  him.      He  was 

indeed,  as  does  Harris,  that  the  book  was  also  impudently  corrupt,  declaring  that 

violent;    but  what  cau  be    said   of  the  he  thought  it  no  crime  for  a  courtier  that 

punishment  ?  lives  at  a  great  expense  in  his  attendance 

-  Hush  worth.     State  Trials.  to  receive  a  reward  to  get  a  business  done 

3  Id.     Whitelock.  p.  18.     Harris's  Life  by  a  great  man  in  favor.     Rushw.  Abr. 

of    Charles,   p.   262.      The    unfortunate  ii.  246.     It  is  to    be   observed    that  the 

words  in  the  index,  "  Women  actors  no-  star-chamber  tribunal  was  almost  as  in- 

torious   whores,'-    cost  Prynne    half  his  famous  for  its  partiality  and  corruption 

ears ;    the    remainder   he   saved   by   the  as  its  cruelty.     See  proofs  of  this  in  the 

hangman's  mercy  for  a  second  harvest,  same  work,  p.  241 
When  he  was  brought  again  before  the 


44  ARCHBISHOP  LAUD.  CHAP.  VIII. 

chy.  For  this,  with  two  other  delinquents  of  the  same  class, 
Burton  a  divine  and  Bastwick  a  physician,  he  stood  again  at 
the  bar  of  that  terrible  tribunal.  Their  demeanor  was  what 
the  court  deemed  intolerably  contumacious,  arising  in  fact 
from  the  despair  of  men  who  knew  that  no  humiliation  would 
procure  them  mercy.1  Prynne  lost  the  remainder  of  his  ears 
in  the  pillory ;  and  the  punishment  was  inflicted  on  them  all 
with  extreme  and  designed  cruelty,  which  they  endured,  as 
martyrs  always  endure  suffering,  so  heroically  as  to  excite  a 
deep  impression  of  sympathy  and  resentment  in  the  assem 
bled  multitude.2  They  were  sentenced  to  perpetual  confine 
ment  in  distant  prisons.  But  their  departure  from  London, 
and  their  reception  on  the  road,  were  marked  by  signal  ex 
pressions  of  popular  regard ;  and  their  friends  resorting  to 
them  even  in  Launceston,  Chester,  and  Carnarvon  castles, 
whither  they  were  sent,  an  order  of  council  was  made  to 
transport  them  to  the  isles  of  the  Channel.  It  was  the  very 
first  act  of  the  long  parliament  to  restore  these  victims  of 
tyranny  to  their  families.  Punishments  by  mutilation,  though 
not  quite  unknown  to  the  English  law,  had  been  of  rare  oc 
currence  ;  and  thus  inflicted  on  men  whose  station  appeared 
to  render  the  ignominy  of  whipping  and  branding  more  in 
tolerable,  they  produced  much  the  same  effect'  as  the  still 
greater  cruelties  of  Mary's  reign,  in  exciting  a  detestation 
for  that  ecclesiastical  dominion  which  protected  itself  by 
means  so  atrocious. 

The  person  on  whom  public  hatred  chiefly  fell,  and  who 
Character  proved  in  a  far  more  eminent  degree  than  any 
of  Laud.  other  individual  the  evil  genius  of  this  unhappy 
sovereign,  was  Laud.  His  talents,  though  enabling  him  to 
acquire  a  large  portion  of  theological  learning,  seem  to  have 
been  by  no  means  considerable.  There  cannot  be  a  more 
contemptible  work  than  his  Diary  ; 3  and  his  letters  to  Straf- 
ford  display  some  smartness,  but  no  great  capacity.  He 
managed  indeed  his  own  defence,  when  impeached,  with 
some  ability ;  but  on  such  occasions  ordinary  men  are  apt 

1  The  intimidation  was  so  great,  that    that  it  excited   general   disapprobation. 
no  counsel  dared  to  sign  Prynne's  plea;     P.  73. 

yet  the  court  refused  to  receive  it  with-  ^  [This  has  lately  been  republished  at 

out  such  signature,     llushworth,  ii.  277.  Oxford,  1839,  under  the  title    "  Autobi- 

Strafford  Letters,  ii.  74.  ography   of  Archbishop  Laud,"    with  a 

2  Id.  85.     Rushw.  295.      State   Trials,  preface,  sufficiently  characteristic  of  its 
Clarendon,  who  speaks  in  a  very  unbe-  celebrated  editor ;  who  has  subjoined  the 
coming  manner  of  this  sentence,  admits  •'  Acts  of  his  Martyrdom."] 


CHA.  I.  — 1629-40.  ARCHBISHOP   LAUD.  45 

to  put  forth  a  remarkable  readiness  and  energy.  Laud's 
inherent  ambition  had  impelled  him  to  court  the  favor  of 
Buckingham,  of  Williams,  and  of  both  the  kings  under  whom 
he  lived,  till  he  rose  to  the  see  of  Canterbury  on  Abbot's 
death,  in  1633.  No  one  can  deny  that  he  was  a  generous 
patron  of  letters,  and  as  warm  in  friendship  as  in  enmity. 
But  he  had  placed  before  his  eyes  the  aggrandizement,  first 
of  the  church,  and  next  of  the  royal  prerogative,  as  his  end 
and  aim  in  every  action.  Though  not  literally  destitute  of 
religion,  it  was  so  subordinate  to  worldly  interest,  and  so 
blended  in  his  mind  with  the  impure  alloy  of  temporal  pride, 
that  he  became  an  intolerant  persecutor  of  the  puritan  cler 
gy,  not  from  bigotry,  which  in  its  usual  sense  he  never  dis 
played,  but  systematic  policy.  And  being  subject,  as  his 
friends  call  it,  to  some  infirmities  of  temper,  that  is,  choleric, 
vindictive,  harsh,  and  even  cruel  to  a  great  degree,  he  not 
only  took  a  prominent  share  in  the  severities  of  the  star- 
chamber,  but,  as  his  correspondence  shows,  perpetually  la 
mented  that  he  was  restrained  from  going  further  lengths.1 

Laud's  extraordinary  favor  with  the  king,  through  which 
he  became  a  prime  adviser  in  matters  of  state,  rendered  him 
secretly  obnoxious  to  most  of  the  council,  jealous,  as  minis 
ters  must  always  be,  of  a  churchman's  overweening  ascen 
dency.  His  faults,  and  even  his  virtues,  contributed  to  this 
odium.  For,  being  exempt  from  the  thirst  of  lucre,  and, 
though  in  the  less  mature  state  of  his  fortunes  a  subtle  in 
triguer,  having  become  frank  through  heat  of  temper  and 
self-confidence,  he  discountenanced  all  schemes  to  serve  the 
private  interest  of  courtiers  at  the  expense  of  his  master's 
exhausted  treasury,  and  went  right  onward  to  his  object,  the 
exaltation  of  the  church  and  crown.  He  aggravated  the 
invidiousness  of  his  own  situation,  and  gave  an  astonishing 
proof  of  his  influence,  by  placing  Juxon,  bishop  of  London, 
a  creature  of  his  own,  in  the  greatest  of  all  posts,  that  of 
lord  high-treasurer.  Though  Williams  had  lately  been  lord- 

i  Laud's  character  is  justly  and  fairly  coat ;  which,  notwithstanding,  he  was  so 

drawn   by    May,  neither    in    the   coarse  far  from  concealing  in  a  subtle  way,  that 

caricature  style  of  Prynne,  nor  with  the  he  increased  the  envy  of  it  by  insolence, 

absurdly-flattering  pencil  of  Clarendon.  He  had  few  vulgar  and  private  vices,  as 

"  The  Archbishop    of  Canterbury  was  a  being  neither  taxed  of  covetousness,  in- 

niain  agent  in    this   fatal  work  ;   a  man  temperance,  nor  incontinence  ;  and  in  a 

vigilant  enough,  of  an  active  or  rather  of  word  a  man  not  altogether  so  bad  in  his 

a  restless  mind ;  more  ambitious  to  un-  personal  character  as  unfit  for  the  state 

dertake  than  politic  to  carry  on;  of  a  of  England."  History  of  Parliament,  19. 
disposition  too  fierce  and  cruel  for  his 


46  LORD   STRAFFORD.  CHAP.  VIII. 

keeper  of  the  seal,  it  seemed  more  preposterous  to  place  the 
treasurer's  staff  in  the  hands  of  a  churchman,  and  of  one 
so  little  distinguished  even  in  his  own  profession,  that  the 
archbishop  displayed  his  contempt  of  the  rest  of  the  coun 
cil,  especially  Cottington,  who  aspired  to  that  post,  by  such 
a  recommendation.1  He  had  previously  procured  the  office 
of  secretary  of  state  for  Windebank.  But,  though  overawed 
by  the  king's  infatuated  partiality,  the  faction  adverse  to 
Laud  were  sometimes  able  to  gratify  their  dislike,  or  to  man 
ifest  their  greater  discretion,  by  opposing  obstacles  to  his  im 
petuous  spirit. 

Of  these  impediments,  which  a  rash  and  ardent  man  calls 
LordStraf-  lukewarmness,  indolence,  and  timidity,  he  ire- 
ford,  quently  complains  in  his  correspondence  with  the 
lord  deputy  of  Ireland  —  that  lord  Wentworth,  so  much 
better  known  by  the  title  of  earl  of  Strafford,  which  he  only 
obtained  the  year  before  his  death,  that  we  may  give  it  him 
by  anticipation,  whose  doubtful  fame  and  memorable  end 
have  made  him  nearly  the  most  conspicuous  character  of  a 
reign  so  fertile  in  recollections.  Strafford  had  in  his  early 
years  sought  those  local  dignities  to  which  his  ambition  prob- 

1  The  following  entry  appears  in  Laud's  a  bishop,  Dr.  Wren,  bishop  of  Norwich  ; 

Diary  (March  6,  1636):  —  "  Sunday,  Wil-  and  as  chancellor  of  the  exchequer  Dr. 

liam  Juxon,  lord  bishop  of  London,  made  Bancroft,   bishop   of   Oxford:    but   this 

lord     high-treasurer    of     England  :     no  conies  only  from  the    young   fry  of  the 

churchman    had    it    since   Henry  VII. 's  clergy;  little  credit  is  given  to  it,  but  it 

time.    I  pray  Clod  bless  him  to  carry  it  so  is  observed  they  swarm   mightily  about 

that  the  church  may  have  honor,  and  the  the  court/'      The  tone   of  these  letters 

king  and  the  state  service  and  content-  shows   that    the   writer    suspected   that 

ment  by  it.   And  now,  if  the  church  will  Wentworth  would  not  be  well  pleased  at 

not  hold  themselves  up  under  God,  I  can  seeing  a  churchman  set  over  his  head, 

do  no  more/'  But  in  several  of  his  own  letters  he  posi- 

Those  who  were  far  from   puritanism  tively  declares  his  aversion  to  the  office, 

could  not  digest  this  strange   elevation,  and   perhaps   with   sincerity.     Ambition 

James    Howell   writes    to  Wentworth,  —  was  less  predominant  in  his  mind  than 

"  The    news    that   keeps    greatest    noise  pride  and  impatience  of  opposition.     He 

here  at  this  present  is  that  there  is  a  new  knew  that  as  lord-treasurer  he  would  be 

lord-treasurer ;  and  it  is  news  indeed,  it  perpetually  thwarted    and    undermined 

being  now  twice  time  out  of  mind  since  by  Cottington  and  others  of  the  council, 

the  white  robe  and  the  white  staff  marched  They,  on    the   other   hand,   must    have 

together;  we    begin  to  live  here  in  the  dreaded   that    such    a    colleague   might 

church  triumphant :  and  there  wants  but  become  their  master.     Laud  himself,  in 

one  more  to  keep  the  king's  conscience,  his  correspondence  with  Strafford,  never 

which  is  more  proper  for  a   churchman  throws  out  the  least  hint  of  a  wish  that 

than  his  coin,  to  make  it  a  triumvirate."  he  should  succeed  Weston,  which  would 

Straff.  Letters,  i.  522.     Garrard,  another  have  interfered  with  his  own  views, 
correspondent,  expresses  his  surprise,  and        It  must  be  added  that  Juxon  redeemed 

thinks  Strafford  himself,  or  Cottiugton,  the   scandal  of  his  appointment    by  an 

would  have  done  better :    p.  523.     And  unblemished  probity,  and  gave  so  little 

afterwards,  vol.  ii.  p.  2.  u  The  clergy  are  offence    in  this  invidious  greatness  that 

so   high   here    since   the  joining   of  the  the  long  parliament  never  attacked  him, 

white  sleeves  with  the  white  staff,   that  and  he  remained  in  his  palace  at  Fulhaiu 

there  is  much  talk  of  having  as  secretary  without  molestation  till  1647. 


CIIA.  I.  — 1629-40.  LORD   STRAFFORD.  47 

ably  was  at  that  time  limited,  the  representation  of  the 
county  of  York  and  the  post  of  custos  rotulorurn,  through 
the  usual  channel  of  court-favor.  Slighted  by  the  duke  of 
Buckingham,  and  mortified  at  the  preference  shown  to  the 
head  of  a  rival  family,  sir  John  Saville,  he  began  to  quit  the 
cautious  and  middle  course  he  had  pursued  in  parliament, 
and  was  reckoned  among  the  opposers  of  the  administration 
after  the  accession  of  Charles.1  He  was  one  of  those  who 
were  made  sheriffs  of  their  counties,  in  order  to  exclude 
them  from  the  parliament  of  1G2G.  This  inspired  so  much 
resentment,  that  he  signalized  himself  as  a  refuser  of  the 
arbitrary  loan  exacted  the  next  year,  and  was  committed  in 
consequence  to  prison.  He  came  to  the  third  parliament 
with  a  determination  to  make  the  court  sensible  of  his  power, 
and  possibly  with  some  real  zeal  for  the  liberties  of  his  coun 
try.  But  patriotism  unhappily,  in  his  self-interested  and 
ambitious  mind,  was  the  seed  sown  among  thorns.  He  had 
never  lost  sight  of  his  hopes  from  the  court ;  even  a  tempo 
rary  reconciliation  with  Buckingham  had  been  effected  in 
1627,  which  the  favorite's  levity  soon  broke;  and  he  kept 
up  a  close  connection  with  the  treasurer  Weston.  Always 
jealous  of  a  rival,  he  contracted  a  dislike  for  sir  John  Eliot, 
and  might  suspect  that  he  was  likely  to  be  anticipated  by 
that  more  distinguished  patriot  in  royal  favors.2  The  hour 

i  Stafford's  Letters,  i.  33,   &c.     The  second  parliament  of  Charles,  from  which 

letters  of  Wentworth  iu  this  period  of  his  it  is  notorious  that  the  former  had  been 

life  show  a  good  deal  of  ambition  and  re-  excluded. 

sentmeut.  but  no  great  portion  of  public  "  Ilacket  tells  us,  in  his  elegant  style, 
spirit.  This  collection  of  the  Strafford  that  u  sir  John  Eliot  of  the  west  and  sir 
letters  forms  a  very  important  portion  of  Thomas  Wentworth  of  the  north,  both  in 
our  historical  documents.  Hume  had  the  prime  of  their  age  and  wits,  both 
looked  at  them  very  superficially,  and  conspicuous  for  able  speakers,  clashed  so 
quotes  them  but  twice.  They  furnished  often  in  the  house,  and  cudgelled  one 
materials  to  Harris  and  Macaulay;  but  another  with  such  strong  contradictions, 
the  first  is  little  read  at  present,  and  the  that  it  grew  from  an  emulation  between 
second  not  at  all.  In  a  recent  and  de-  them  to  an  enmity.  The  lord-treasurer 
servedly  popular  publication,  Macdiar-  Weston  picked  out  the  northern  cock,  sir 
mid's  Lives  of  British  Statesmen,  the  Thomas,  to  make  him  the  king's  creature, 
work  of  a  young  man  of  letters,  who  did  and  set  him  upon  the  first  step  of  his  ris- 
not  live  to  struggle  through  the  distresses  ing;  which  was  wormwood  in  the  taste 
of  that  profession,  the  character  of  Straf-  of  Eliot,  who  revenged  himself  upon  the 
ford  is  drawn  from  the  best  authorities,  king  in  the  bill  of  tonnage,  and  then  fell 
and  with  abundant,  perhaps  excessive,  upon  the  treasurer,  and  declaimed  against, 
candor.  Mr.  Brodie  has  well  pointed  out  him  that  he  was  the  author  of  all  the 
that  he  has  obtained  more  credit  for  the  evils  under  which  the  kingdom  was  op- 
early  period  of  his  parliamentary  life  pressed."  He  proceeds  to  inform  us  that 
than  he  deserves,  by  being  confounded  bishop  Williams  offered  to  bring  Eliot 
with  Mr.  \Ventworth,  member  for  Ox-  over,  for  which  Wentworth  never  forgave 
ford :  vol.  ii.  p.  249.  Hush  worth  has  even  him.  Life  of  Williams,  p.  82.  The  mag- 
ascribed  to  sir  Thomas  Wentworth  the  nanimous  fortitude  of  Eliot  forbids  us  to 
speeches  of  this  Mr.  Wentworth  in  the  give  credit  to  any  surmise  unfavorable  to 


48  LORD   STRAFFORD.  CHAP.  VIII. 

of  Wentworth's  glory  was  when  Charles  assented  to  the  Pe 
tition  of  Right,  in  obtaining  which,  and  in  overcoming  the 
king's  chicane  and  the  hesitation  of  the  lords,  he  had  been 
preeminently  conspicuous.  From  this  moment  he  started 
aside  from  the  path  of  true  honor  ;  and,  being  suddenly  ele 
vated  to  the  peerage  and  a  great  post,  the  presidency  of  the 
council  of  the  North,  commenced  a  splendid  but  baleful 
career,  that  terminated  at  the  scaffold.1  After  this  fatal 
apostasy  he  not  only  lost  all  solicitude  about  those  liber 
ties  which  the  Petition  of  Right  had  been  designed  to  secure, 
but  became  their  deadliest  and  most  shameless  enemy. 

The  council  of  the  North  was  erected  by  Henry  VIII. 
after  the  suppression  of  the  great  insurrection  of  1536.  It 
had  a  criminal  jurisdiction  in  Yorkshire  and  the  four  more 
northern  counties,  as  to  riots,  conspiracies,  and  acts  of  vio 
lence.  It  had  also,  by  its  original  commission,  a  jurisdiction 
in  civil  suits,  where  either  of  the  parties  were  too  poor  to 
bear  the  expenses  of  a  process  at  common  law  ;  in  which 
case  the  council  might  determine,  as  it  seems,  in  a  summary 
manner,  and  according  to  equity.  But  this  latter  authority 
had  been  held  illegal  by  the  judges  under  Elizabeth.'2  In 
fact,  the  lawfulness  of  this  tribunal  in  any  respect  was,  to 
say  the  least,  highly  problematical.  It  was  regulated  by  in 
structions  issued  from  time  to  time  under  the  great  seal. 
Wentworth  spared  no  pains  to  enlarge  the  jurisdiction  of  his 
court.  A  commission  issued  in  1 632,  empowering  the  coun 
cil  of  the  North  to  hear  and  determine  all  offences,  mis 
demeanors,  suits,  debates,  controversies,  demands,  causes, 
things,  and  matters  whatsoever  therein  contained,  within 
certain  precincts,  namely,  from  the  Humber  to  the  Scots 
frontier.  They  were  specially  appointed  to  hear  and  de 
termine  divers  offences,  according  to  the  course  of  the  star- 
chamber,  whether  provided  for  by  act  of  parliament  or  not ; 
to  hear  complaints  according  to  the  rules  of  the  court  of 
chancery,  and  stay  proceedings  at  common  law  by  injunc 
tion  ;  to  attach  persons  by  their  sergeant  in  any  part  of  the 
realm.3 


his  glory  upon  such  indifferent  author-  the  assassination   of  Buckingham.     His 

ity ;  but  several  passages  in  Wentworth's  patent  in  llymer  bears  date  22nd  July, 

letters  to  Laud  show  his  malice  towards  1628,  a  month  previous  to  that  event. 
one  who  had  perished  in  the  great  cause        2  Fourth  Inst.   c.  49.     See  also  13  Re- 

which  he  had  so  basely  forsaken.  ports.  31. 

i  Wentworth  was  brought  over  before        3  Itymer,  xix.  9.     Rushworth,  ii.  127. 


CHA.  1.  — 1629-40.      STRAFFORD   IX   IRELAND.  49 

These  inordinate  powers,  the  soliciting  and  procuring  of 
which,  especially  by  a  person  so  well  versed  in  the  laws  and 
constitution,  appears  to  be  of  itself  a  sufficient  ground  for 
impeachment,  were  abused  by  Stratford  to  gratify  his  own 
pride,  as  well  as  to  intimidate  the  opposers  of  arbitrary 
measures.  Proofs  of  this  occur  in  the  prosecution  of  sir- 
David  Foulis,  in  that  of  Mr.  Bellasis,  in  that  of  Mr.  Male- 
verer,  for  the  circumstances  of  which  I  refer  the  reader  to 
more  detailed  history.1 

Without  resigning  his  presidency  of  the  northern  council, 
Wentworth  was  transplanted  in  1G33  to  a  still  more  exten 
sive  sphere,  as  lord-deputy  of  Ireland.  This  was  the  great 
scene  on  which  he  played  his  part ;  it  was  here  that  he  found 
abundant  scope  for  his  commanding  energy  and  imperious 
passions.  The  Richelieu  of  that  island,  he  made  it  wealthier 
in  the  midst  of  exactions,  and,  one  might  almost  say,  happier 
in  the  midst  of  oppressions.  He  curbed  subordinate  tyran 
ny  ;  but  his  own  left  a  sting  behind  it  that  soon  spread  a 
deadly  poison  over  Ireland.  But  of  his  merits  and  his  in 
justice  towards  that  nation  I  shall  find  a  better  occasion  to 
speak.  Two  well-known  instances  of  his  despotic  conduct  in 
respect  to  single  persons  may  just  be  mentioned :  the  depri 
vation  and  imprisonment  of  the  lord  chancellor  Lot'tus  for 
not  obeying  an  order  of  the  privy  council  to  make  such  a 
settlement  as  they  prescribed  on  his  son's  marriage  —  a 
stretch  of  interference  with  private  concerns  which  was  ag 
gravated  by  the  suspected  familiarity  of  the  lord-deputy  with 
the  lady  who  was  to  reap  advantage  from  it ; 2  and,  secondly, 
the  sentence  of  death  passed  by  a  council  of  war  on  lord 
Mountnorris,  in  Strafford's  presence,  and  evidently  at  his  in 
stigation,  on  account  of  some  very  slight  expressions  which 

l  Kushworth.      Strafford's   Trial,    &c.  to  impose  upon  it."   Sept.  1632.     Soiners 

Brodie,  ii.  319.      Straff.  Letters,   i.    145.  Tracts,  iv.  198. 

In  a  letter  to  lord  Doncaster,   pressing        2  Rushworth,  Abr.  iii.  85.     Clarendon, 

for  a  severe  sentence  on  Foulis,  who  had  i.  390  (1826).      The   original  editors  left 

been  guilty  of  some  disrespect  to  himself  out  some  words  which  brought  this  home 

as   president  of    the   North,  Went  worth  to  Strafford.    And  if  the  case  was  as  there 

shows  his  abhorrence  of  liberty  with  all  seems  every  reason  to   believe,  I  would 

the  bitterness  of  a  renegado ;  and  urges  ask  those  who  talk  of  this  man's  inno- 

the  "  seasonable  correcting  an  humour  cence  whether,  in  any  civilized  country, 

and  liberty  I  find  reign  in  these  parts,  of  a  more  outrageous  piece  of  tyranny  has 

observing  a  superior  command  no  farther  been  committed   by  a  governor  than  to 

than  they  like  themselves,  and  of  ques-  compel  a  nobleman  of  the  highest  station 

tioning  any  profit  of  the  crown,  called  to  change  the  disposition  of  his  private 

upon   by  his  majesty's  ministers,  which  estate,  because  that  governor  carried  on 

might  enable  it  to  subsist  of  itself,  with-  an  adulterous  intercourse  with  the  daugh- 

out  being  necessitated  to  accept  of  such  ter-in-law  of  the  person  whom  he  treated 

conditions  as  others  might  easily  think  thus  imperiously  .' 
VOL.    II.                                    4 


50  CORRESPONDENCE  BETWEEN  CHAP.  VIII. 

he  had  used  in  private  society.  Though  it  was  never  the 
deputy's  intention  to  execute  this  judgment  of  his  slaves,  but 
to  humiliate  and  trample  upon  Mountnorris,  the  violence  and 
indecency  of  his  conduct  in  it,  his  long  persecution  of  the 
unfortunate  prisoner  after  the  sentence,  and  his  glorying  in 
the  act  at  all  times,  and  even  on  his  own  trial,  are  irrefraga 
ble  proofs  of  such  vindictive  bitterness  as  ought,  if  there 
were  nothing  else,  to  prevent  any  good  man  from  honoring 
his  memory.1 

The  haughty  and  impetuous  primate  found  a  congenial 
Correspond-  spirit  in  the  lord-deputy.  They  unbosom  to  each 
ence  be-  other,  in  their  private  letters,  their  ardent  thirst  to 
and  straf-  promote  the  king's  service  by  measures  of  more 
energy  than  they  were  permitted  to  exercise.  Do 
we  think  the  administration  of  Charles  during  the  interval  of 
parliaments  rash  and  violent?  They  tell  us  it  was  over 
cautious  and  slow.  Do  we  revolt  from  the  severities  of  the 
star-chamber?  To  Laud  and  Strafford  they  seemed  the 
feebleness  of  excessive  lenity.  Do  we  cast  on  the  crown- 
lawyers  the  reproach  of  having  betrayed  their  country's  liber 
ties  ?  We  may  find  that,  with  their  utmost  servility,  they 
fell  far  behind  the  expectations  of  the  court,  and  their  scru 
ples  were  reckoned  the  chief  shackles  on  the  half-emancipated 
prerogative. 

The  system  which  Laud  was  longing  to  pursue  in  England, 
and  which  Strafford  approved,  is  frequently  hinted  at  by  the 
word  Thorough.  "  For  the  state,"  says  he,  "  indeed,  my  lord, 
I  am  for  Thorough  ;  for  I  see  that  both  thick  and  thin  stay 
somebody,  where  I  conceive  it  should  not,  and  it  is  impossible 
to  go  thorough  alone."  2  "I  am  very  glad "  (in  another  let 
ter)  "  to  read  your  lordship  so  resolute,  and  more  to  hear  you 

i  Clarendon   Papers,  i.  449,   543,  594,  ment,  but  to  purchase  an  estate  in  Scot- 

Rushworth,  Abridg.  iii.  43.     Clar.  Hist,  land.     Id.  511. 

i.  386  (1826).  Strafford  Letters,  i.  497,  Hume,  in  extenuating  the  conduct  of 
et  post.  This  proceeding  against  lord  Strafford  as  to  Mountnorris's  trial,  says 
Mountnorris  excited  much  dissatisfaction  that.,  "  sensible  of  the  iniquity  of  the  sen 
in  England;  those  of  the  council  who  fence,  he  procured  his  majesty  ;s  free  par- 
disliked  Strafford  making  it  a  pretext  to  don  to  Mountnorris."  There  is  not  the 
inveigh  against  his  arrogance.  But  the  slightest  evidence  to  warrant  the  words 
king,  invariably  on  the  severe  and  arbi-  in  italics  ;  on  the  contrary,  he  always  jus- 
trary  side,  justified  the  measure,  which  tified  the  sentence,  and  had  most  mani- 
silenced  the  courtiers  :  p.  512.  Be  it  festly  procured  it.  The  king,  in  return 
added  that  the  virtuous  Charles  took  a  to  a  moving  petition  of  lady  Mountnorris, 
bribe  of  6000L  for  bestowing  Mountnor-  permitted  his  release  from  confinement, 
ris's  office  on  sir  Adam  Loftus,  not  out  of  "  on  making  such  a  submission  as  my 
distress  through  the  parsimony  of  parlia-  lord-deputy  shall  approve.'' 

2  Strafford  Letters,  i.  111. 


\ 


CHA.  L  — 1029-40.      LAUD   AND   STRAFFORD.  51 

affirm  that  the  footing  of  them  that  go  thorough  for  our  mas 
ter's  service  is  not  upon  fee,  as  it  hath  been.  But  you  are 
withal  upon  so  many  It's,  that  by  their  help  you  may  preserve 
any  man  upon  ice,  be  it  never  so  slippery.  As  first,  if  the 
common  lawyers  may  be  contained  within  their  ancient  and 
sober  bounds ;  if  the  word  Thorough  be  not  left  out,  as  I  am 
certain  it  is ;  if  we  grow  not  faint ;  if  we  ourselves  be  not  in 
fault ;  if  we  come  not  to  a  peccatum  ex  te  Israel ;  if  others 
will  do  their  parts  as  thoroughly  as  you  promise  for  yourself, 
and  justly  conceive  of  me.  Now  I  pray,  with  so  many  and 
such  Ifs  as  these,  what  may  not  be  done,  and  in  a  brave  and 
noble  way  ?  But  can  you  tell  when  these  Ifs  will  meet,  or 
be  brought  together  ?  Howsoever  I  am  resolved  to  go  on 
steadily  in  the  way  which  you  have  formerly  seen  me  go;  so 
that  (to  put  in  one  if  too),  if  anything  fail  of  my  hearty 
desires  for  the  king  and  the  church's  service,  the  fault  shall 
not  be  mine."  1  "  As  for  my  marginal  note  "  (he  writes  in 
another  place),  "1  see  you  deciphered  it  well"  (they  fre 
quently  corresponded  in  cipher),  "and  I  see  you  make  use 
of  it  too ;  do  so  still,  thorough  and  thorough.  Oh  that  I 
were  where  I  might  go  so  too  !  but  I  am  shackled  between 
delays  and  uncertainties ;  you  have  a  great  deal  of  honor 
here  for  your  proceedings  ;  go  on  a  God's  name."  "  I  have 
done,"  he  says  some  years  afterwards,  "  with  expecting  of 
Thorough  on  this  side."  2 

It  is  evident  that  the  remissness  of  those  with  whom  he 
was  joined  in  the  administration,  in  not  adopting  or  enforcing 
sufficiently  energetic  measures,  is  the  subject  of  the  arch 
bishop's  complaint.  Neither  he  nor  Strafford  loved  the  treas 
urer  Weston,  nor  lord  Cottington,  both  of  whom  had  a  con 
siderable  weight  in  the  council.  But  it  is  more  difficult  to 
perceive  in  what  respects  the  Thorough  system  was  disre 
garded.  He  cannot  allude  to  the  church,  which  he  absolutely 
governed  through  the  high-commission  court.  The  inade 
quate  punishments,  as  he  thought  them,  imposed  on  the  re 
fractory,  formed  a  part,  but  not  the  whole,  of  his  grievance. 
It  appears  to  me  that  the  great  aim  of  these  two  persons  was 
to  effect  the  subjugation  of  the  common  lawyers.  Some  sort 
of  tenderness  for  those  constitutional  privileges,  so  indisso- 
lubly  interwoven  with  the  laws  they  administered,  adhered 

i  Strafford  Letters,  i.  155.  inefficient  system  of  the  rest  of  the  coun- 

-  \\  329.     In  other  letters  they  com-  oil,  unless  it  is  a  personal  nickname  for 

plain   of  what  they   call  the  lady  Mora,  Westou. 

which  seems  to  be  a  cant  word  for  the 


52  CORRESPONDENCE  BETWEEN  CHAP.  VIII. 

to  the  judges,  even  while  they  made  great  sacrifices  of  their 
integrity  at  the  instigation  of  the  crown.  In  the  case  of 
habeas  corpus,  in  that  of  ship-money,  we  find  many  of  them 
display  a  kind  of  half-compliance,  a  reservation,  a  distinction, 
an  anxiety  to  rest  on  precedents,  which,  though  it  did  not 
save  their  credit  with  the  public,  impaired  it  at  court.  On 
some  more  fortunate  occasions,  as  we  have  seen,  they  even 
manifested  a  good  deal  of  firmness  in  resisting  what  was 
urged  on  them.  Chiefly,  however,  in  matter  of  prohibitions 
issuing  from  the  ecclesiastical  courts,  they  were  uniformly 
tenacious  of  their  jurisdiction.  Nothing  could  expose  them 
more  to  Laud's  ill-will.  I  should  not  deem  it  improbable 
that  he  had  formed,  or  rather  adopted  from  the  canonists,  a 
plan,  not  only  of  rendering  the  spiritual  jurisdiction  inde 
pendent,  but  of  extending  it  to  all  civil  causes,  unless  perhaps 
in  questions  of  freehold.1 

The  presumption  of  common  lawyers,  and  the  difficulties 
they  threw  in  the  way  of  the  church  and  crown,  are  frequent 
themes  with  the  two  correspondents.  "  The  church,"  says 
Laud,  "  is  so  bound  up  in  the  forms  of  the  common  law%  that 
it  is  not  possible  for  me  or  for  any  man  to  do  that  good  which 

i  The  bishops,  before  the  Reformation,  in  the  star-chamber,  1637,  and  again  on 
issued  process  from  their  courts  in  their  his  trial,  asserts  episcopal  jurisdiction 
own  names.  By  the  statute  of  1  Edw.  VI.  (except  what  is  called  in  foro  contentioso) 
c.  2,  all  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  is  de-  to  be  of  divine  right ;  a  doctrine  not 
clared  to  be  immediately  from  the  crown  ;  easily  reconcilable  with  the  crown's 
and  it  is  directed  that  persons  exercising  supremacy  over  all  causes  under  the 
it  shall  use  the  king's  arms  in  their  seal,  statute  of  Elizabeth ;  since  any  spiritual 
and  no  other.  This  was  repealed  under  censure  may  be  annulled  by  a  lay  tribu- 
Mary  ;  but  her  act  is  itself  repealed  by  1  nal,  the  commission  of  delegates  ;  and 
Jac.  I.  c.  25,  §  48.  This  seems  to  revive  how  this  can  be  compatible  with  a  divine 
the  act  of  Edward.  The  spiritual  courts,  authority  in  the  bishop  to  pronounce  it, 
however,  continued  to  issue  process  in  seems  not  easy  to  prove.  Laud,  I  have 
the  bishop's  name,  and  with  his  seal.  On  no  doubt,  would  have  put  an  end  to  this 
some  difficulty  being  made  concerning  badge  of  subordination  to  the  crown, 
this,  it  was  referred  by  the  star-chamber  The  judges  in  Cawdrey's  case,  5  Reports, 
to  the  twelve  judges,  who  gave  it  under  held  a  very  different  language  ;  nor  would 
their  hands  that  the  statute  of  Edward  Elizabeth  have  borne  this  assumption  of 
was  repealed,  and  that  the  practice  of  the  the  prelates  as  tamely  as  Charles,  in  his 
ecclesiastical  courts  in  this  respect  was  poor-spirited  bigotry,  seems  to  have  done, 
agreeable  to  law.  Neal,  589.  Kennet,  Stillingfleet,  though  he  disputes  at  great 
92.  Rush.  Abr.iii.  340.  Whitelock  says,  length  the  doctrine  of  lord  Coke,  in  his 
p.  22,  that  the  bishops  all  denied  that  fifth  Report,  as  to  the  extent  of  the  royal 
they  held  their  jurisdiction  from  the  supremacy  before  the  first  of  Elizabeth, 
king,  for  which  they  were  liable  to  heavy  fully  admits  that,  since  the  statute  of  that 
penalties.  This  question  is  of  little  con-  year,  the  authority  for  keeping  courts,  in 
sequence  ;  for  it  is  still  true  that  ecclesi-  whose  name  soever  they  may  be  held,  is 
astinal  jurisdiction,  according  to  the  law,  derived  from  the  king.  Vol.  iii.  768,  778. 
emanates  from  the  crown  ;  nor  does  any-  This  arrogant  contempt  of  the  lawyers 
thing  turn  on  the  issuing  of  process  in  manifested  by  Laud  and  his  faction  of 
the  bishop's  name,  any  more  than  on  the  priests  led  to  the  ruin  of  the  great  church- 
holding  courts-baron  in  the  name  of  the  men,  and  of  the  church  itself — by  the 
lord.  In  Ireland,  unless  I  am  mistaken,  hands,  chiefly,  of  that  powerful  body  they 
the  king's  name  is  used  in  ecclesiastical  had  insulted,  as  Clarendon  has  justly 
proceedings.  Laud,  in  his  famous  speech  remarked. 


CHA.  L  — 1629-40.      LAUD  AND   STEAFFORD.  53 

he  would,  or  is  bound  to  do.  For  your  lordship  sees,  no  man 
clearer,  that  they  which  have  gotten  so  much  power  in  and 
over  the  church  will  not  let  go  their  hold  ;  they  have  indeed 
fangs  with  a  witness,  whatsoever  I  was  once  said  in  a  passion 
to  have."  l  Strafford  replies,  "  I  know  no  reason  but  you 
may  as  well  rule  the  common  lawyers  in  England  as  I,  poor 
beagle,  do  here  ;  and  yet  that  I  do,  and  will  do,  in  all  that 
concerns  my  master,  at  the  peril  of  my  head.  I  am  confident 
that  the  king,  being  pleased  to  set  himself  in  the  business,  is 
able,  by  his  wisdom  and  ministers,  to  carry  any  just  and 
honorable  action  through  all  imaginary  opposition,  for  real 
there  can  be  none ;  that  to  start  aside  for  such  panic  fears, 
fantastic  apparitions,  as  a  Prynne  or  an  Eliot  shall  set  up, 
were  the  meanest  folly  in  the  whole  world  ;  that,  the  debts 
of  the  crown  being  taken  off,  you  may  govern  as  you  please  ; 
and  most  resolute  I  am  that  the  work  may  be  done  without 
borrowing  any  help  forth  of  the  king's  lodgings,  and  that  it 
is  as  downright  a  peccatum  ex  te  Israel  as  ever  was,  if  all 
this  be  not  effected  with  speed  and  ease."  2  —  Stratford's  in 
dignation  at  the  lawyers  breaks  out  on  other  occasions.  In 
writing  to  lord  Cottington  he  complains  of  a  judge  of  assize 
who  had  refused  to  receive  the  king's  instructions  to  the 
council  of  the  North  in  evidence,  and  beseeches  that  he  may 
be  charged  with  this  great  misdemeanor  before  the  council- 
board.  "  I  confess,"  he  says,  "  I  disdain  to  see  the  gown- 
men  in  this  sort  hang  their  noses  over  the  flowers  of  the 
crown."  3  It  was  his  endeavor  in  Ireland,  as  well  as  in  York 
shire,  to  obtain  the  right  of  determining  civil  suits.  u  I  find,'' 
he  says,  "  that  my  lord  Falkland  was  restrained  by  procla 
mation  not  to  meddle  in  any  cause  between  party  and  party, 
which  did  certainly  lessen  his  power  extremely :  I  know 
very  well  the  common  lawyers  will  be  passionately  against 
it,  who  are  wont  to  put  such  a  prejudice  upon  all  other  pro 
fessions,  as  if  none  were  to  be  trusted  or  capable  to  adminis 
ter  justice  but  themselves ;  yet  how  well  this  suits  with  mon 
archy,  when  they  monopolize  all  to  be  governed  by  their 
year-books,  you  in  England  have  a  costly  experience  ;  and  I 
am  sure  his  majesty's  absolute  power  is  not  weaker  in  this 
kingdom,  where  hitherto  the  deputy  and  council-board  have 
had  a  stroke  with  them."  4  The  king  indulged  him  in  this, 
with  a  restriction  as  to  matters  of  inheritance. 

1  StrafTord  Letters,  i.  Ill  3  p.  129. 

2  P.  17JJ.  *  P.  201.     See  also  p.  223. 


54  PRINCIPLES   AND  ACTS  CHAP.  VIII. 

The  cruelties  exercised  on  Prynne  and  his  associates  have 
generally  been  reckoned  among  the  great  reproaches  of  the 
primate.  It  has  sometimes  been  insinuated  that  they  were 
rather  the  act  of  other  counsellors  than  his  own.  But  his 
letters,  as  too  often  occurs,  belie  this  charitable  excuse.  He 
expresses  in  them  no  sort  of  humane  sentiment  towards 
these  unfortunate  men,  but  the  utmost  indignation  at  the 
oscitancy  of  those  in  power,  which  connived  at  the  public 
demonstrations  of  sympathy.  "  A  little  more  quickness,"  he 
says,  "  in  the  government  would  cure  this  itch  of  libelling. 
But  what  can  you  think  of  Thorough  when  there  shall  be 
such  slips  in  business  of  consequence  ?  What  say  you  to  it, 
that  Prynne  and  his  fellows  should  be  suffered  to  talk  what 
they  pleased  while  they  stood  in  the  pillory,  and  win  accla 
mations  from  the  people,  &c.  ?  By  that  which  I  have  above 
written,  your  lordship  will  see  that  the  Triumviri  will  be  far 
enough  from  being  kept  dark.  It  is  true  that,  when  this  busi 
ness  is  spoken  of,  some  men  speak  as  your  lordship  writes, 
that  it  concerns  the  king  and  government  more  than  me. 
But  when  anything  comes  to  be  acted  against  them,  be  it 
but  the  execution  of  a  sentence,  in  which  lies  the  honor  and 
safety  of  all  justice,  yet  there  is  little  or  nothing  done,  nor 
shall  I  ever  live  to  see  it  otherwise."  1 

The  lord-deputy  fully  concurred  in  this  theory  of  vigorous 
government.  They  reasoned  on  such  subjects  as  cardinal 
Granville  and  the  duke  of  Alva  had  reasoned  before  them. 
"  A  prince,"  he  says  in  answer,  "  that  loseth  the  force  and 
example  of  his  punishments,  loseth  withal  the  greatest  part 
of  his  dominion.  If  the  eyes  of  the  Triumviri  be  not  sealed 
so  close  as  they  ought,  they  may  perchance  spy  us  out  a 
shrewd  turn  when  we  least  expect  it.  I  fear  we  are  hugely 
mistaken,  and  misapply  our  charity  thus  pitying  of  them, 
where  we  should  indeed  much  rather  pity  ourselves.  It  is 
strange  indeed,"  he  observes  in  another  place,  "  to  see  the 
frenzy  which  possessed!  the  vulgar  now-a-days,  and  that  the 
just  displeasure  and  chastisement  of  a  state  should  produce 
greater  estimation,  nay  reverence,  to  persons  of  no  consid 
eration  either  for  life  or  learning,  than  the  greatest  and  high 
est  trust  and  employments  shall  be  able  to  procure  for  others 
of  unspotted  conversation,  of  most  eminent  virtues  and  deep 
est  knowledge :  a  grievous  and  overspreading  leprosy  !  but 

i  Strafford  Letters,  ii.  100. 


CHA.  I.— 1029-40.  OF   STRAFFORD.  55 

where  you  mention  a  remedy,  sure  it  is  not  fitted  for  the 
hand  of  every  physician ;  the  cure  under  God  must  be 
wrought  by  one  ^Esculapius  alone,  and  that  in  my  weak 
judgment  to  be  effected  rather  by  corrosives  than  lenitives: 
less  than  Thorough  will  not  overcome  it ;  there  is  a  can 
cerous  malignity  in  it,  which  must  be  cut  forth,  which  long- 
since  rejected  all  other  means,  and  therefore  to  God  and  him 
I  leave  it."' l 

The  honorable  reputation  that  Strafford  had  earned  before 
his  apostasy  stood  principally  on  two  grounds  :  his  refusal 
to  comply  with  a  requisition  of  money  without  consent  of 
parliament,  and  his  exertions  in  the  Petition  of  Right,  which 
declared  every  such  exaction  to  be  contrary  to  law.  If  any, 
therefore,  be  inclined  to  palliate  his  arbitrary  proceedings 
and  principles  in  the  executive  administration,  his  virtue  will 
be  brought  to  a  test  in  the  business  of  ship-money.  If  he 
shall  be  found  to  have  given  countenance  and  support  to  that 
measure,  there  must  be  an  end  of  all  pretence  to  integrity  or 
patriotism.  But  of  this  there  are  decisive  proofs.  He  not 
only  made  every  exertion  to  enforce  its  payment  in  York 
shire  during  the  years  1G39  and  16-40,  for  which  the  peculiar 
dangers  of  that  time  might  furnish  some  apology,  but  long 
before,  in  his  correspondence  with  Laud,  speaks  thus  of  Mr. 
Hampden,  deploring,  it  seems,  the  supineness  that  had  per 
mitted  him  to  dispute  the  crown's  claim  with  impunity. 
"  Mr.  Hampden  is  a  great  brother  \_i.  e,  a  puritan],  and  the 
very  genius  of  that  people  leads  them  always  to  oppose,  as 
well  civilly  as  ecclesiastically,  all  that  ever  authority  ordains 
for  them ;  but  in  good  faith,  were  they  right  served,  they 
should  be  whipt  home  into  their  right  wits,  and  much  be 
holden  they  should  be  to  any  one  that  would  thoroughly 
take  pains  with  them  in  that  kind."  2  "  In  truth,  I  still  wish, 
and  take  it  also  to  be  a  very  charitable  one,  Mr.  H.  and  oth 
ers  to  his  likeness  wTere  well  whipt  into  their  right  senses  ; 
if  that  the  rod  be  so  used  as  that  it  smarts  not,  I  am  the 
more  sorry."  3 

Ilutton,  one  of  the  judges  who  had  been  against  the  crown 
in  this  case,  having  some  small  favor  to  ask  of  Strafford, 
takes  occasion  in  his  letter  to  enter  on  the  subject  of  ship- 
money,  mentioning  his  own  opinion  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
give  the  least  possible  offence,  and  with  all  qualifications  in 

i  Strafford  Letters,  ii.  136.  2  p.  138.  3  p.  158. 


56  PRINCIPLES   AND  ACTS  CHAP.  VIII. 

favor  of  the  crown  ;  commending  even  lord  Finch's  argu 
ment  on  the  other  side.1  The  lord-deputy,  answering  his 
letter  after  much  delay,  says,  "  I  must  confess,  in  a  business 
of  so  mighty  importance,  I  shall  the  less  regard  the  forms 
of  pleading,  and  do  conceive,  as  it  seems  my  lord  Finch 
pressed,  that  the  power  of  levies  of  forces  at  sea  and  land 
for  the  very,  not  feigned,  relief  and  safety  of  the  public,  is  a 
property  of  sovereignty,  as,  were  the  crown  willing,  it  could 
not  divest  it  thereof:  Salus  populi  suprema  lex  ;  nay,  in  cases 
of  extremity,  even  above  acts  of  parliament,"  &c. 

It  cannot  be  forgotten  that  the  loan  of  1026,  for  refusing 
which  Wentworth  had  suffered  imprisonment,  had  been  de 
manded  in  a  season  of  incomparably  greater  difficulty  than 
that  when  ship-money  was  levied  :  at  the  one  time  war  had 
been  declared  against  both  France  and  Spain,  at  the  other 
the  public  tranquillity  was  hardly  interrupted  by  some  bick 
erings  with  Holland.  In  avowing  therefore  the  king's  right 
to  levy  money  in  cases  of  exigency,  and  to  be  the  sole  judge 
of  that  exigency,  he  uttered  a  shameless  condemnation  of  his 
former  virtues.  But  lest  any  doubt  should  remain  of  his 
perfect  alienation  from  all  principles  of  limited  monarchy,  I 
shall  produce  still  more  conclusive  proofs.  He  was  strongly 
and  wisely  against  the  war  with  Spain,  into  which  Charles's 
resentment  at  finding  himself  the  dupe  of  that  power  in  the 
business  of  the  Palatinate  nearly  hurried  him  in  1637.  At 
this  time  Strafford  laid  before  the  king  a  paper  of  considera 
tions  dissuading  him  from  this  course,  and  pointing  out  par 
ticularly  his  want  of  regular  troops.'2  "  It  is  plain,  indeed," 
he  says,  "  that  the  opinion  delivered  by  the  judges,  declaring 
the  lawfulness  of  the  assessment  for  the  shipping,  is  the 
greatest  service  that  profession  hath  done  the  crown  in  my 
time.  But  unless  his  majesty  hath  the  like  power  declared 
to  raise  a  land  army  upon  the  same  exigent  of  state,  the 
crown  seems  to  me  to  stand  but  upon  one  leg  at  home,  to  be 
considerable  but  by  halves  to  foreign  powers.  Yet  this  sure 
methinks  convinces  a  power  for  the  sovereign  to  raise  pay 
ments  for  land  forces,  and  consequently  submits  to  his  wis 
dom  and  ordinance  the  transporting  of  the  money  or  men 
into  foreign  states.  Seeing,  then,  that  this  piece  well  forti 
fied  forever  vindicates  the  royalty  at  home  from  under  the 
conditions  and  restraints  of  subjects,  renders  us  also  abroad 

i  Strafford  Letters,  ii.  178.  2  p.  60 


CHA.  I.  — 1629-40.  OF   STRAFFORD.  57 

even  to  the  greatest  kings  the  most  considerable  monarchy 
in  Christendom ;  seeing,  again,  this  is  a  business  to  be 
attempted  and  won  from  the  subject  in  time  of  peace  only, 
and  the  people  first  accustomed  to  these  levies,  when  they 
may  be  called  upon  as  by  way  of  prevention  for  our  future 
safety,  and  keep  his  majesty  thereby  also  moderator  of  the 
peace  of  Christendom,  rather  than  upon  the  bleeding  evil 
of  an  instant  and  active  wrar ;  I  beseech  you,  what  piety  to 
alliances  is  there  that  should  divert  a  great  and  wise  king 
forth  of  a  path  which  leads  so  manifestly,  so  directly,  to  the 
establishing  his  own  throne,  and  the  secure  and  indepen 
dent  seating  of  himself  and  posterity  in  wealth,  strength,  and 
glory,  far  above  any  their  progenitors,  verily  in  such  a  con 
dition  as  there  were  no  more  hereafter  to  be  wished  them  in 
this  world  but  that  they  would  be  very  exact  in  their  care 
for  the  just  and  moderate  government  of  their  people,  which 
might  minister  back  to  them  again  the  plenties  and  comforts 
of  life,  that  they  would  be  most  searching  and  severe  in  pun 
ishing  the  oppressions  and  wrongs  of  their  subjects,  as  wrell 
in  the  case  of  the  public  magistrate  as  of  private  persons; 
and,  lastly,  to  be  utterly  resolved  to  exercise  this  power  only 
for  public  and  necessary  uses  ;  to  spare  them  as  much  and 
often  as  were  possible  ;  and  that  they  never  be  wantonly 
vitiated  or  misapplied  to  any  private  pleasure  or  person 
whatsoever  ?  This  being,  indeed,  the  very  only  means  to 
preserve,  as  may  be  said,  the  chastity  of  these  levies,  and  to 
recommend  their  beauty  so  far  forth  to  the  subject,  as,  be 
ing  thus  disposed,  it  is  to  be  justly  hoped  they  will  never 
grudge  the  parting  with  their  moneys 

"  Perhaps  it  may  be  asked,  where  shall  so  great  a  sum  be 
had  ?  My  answer  is,  Procure  it  from  the  subjects  of  Eng 
land,  and  profitably  for  them  too.  By  this  means  preventing 
the  raising  upon  them  a  land  army  for  defence  of  the  king 
dom,  which  would  be  by  many  degrees  more  chargeable  ;  and 
hereby  also  insensibly  gain  a  precedent,  and  settle  an  author 
ity  and  right  in  the  crown  to  levies  of  that  nature,  which 
thread  draws  after  it  many  huge  and  great  advantages,  more 
proper  to  be  thought  on  at  some  other  seasons  than  now." 

It  is,  however,  remarkable  that,  with  all  Strafford's  en 
deavors  to  render  the  king  absolute,  he  did  not  intend  to 
abolish  the  use  of  parliaments.  This  was  apparently  the 
aim  of  Charles  ;  but,  whether  from  remains  of  attachment 


58  PRINCIPLES   OF   STRAFFORD.  CHAP.  VIII. 

to  the  ancient  forms  of  liberty  surviving  amidst  his  hatred 
of  the  real  essence,  or  from  the  knowledge  that  a  well-gov 
erned  parliament  is  the  best  engine  for  extracting  money 
from  the  people,  this  able  minister  entertained  very  different 
views.  He  urged  accordingly  the  convocation  of  one  in 
Ireland,  pledging  himself  for  the  experiment's  success.  And 
in  a  letter  to  a  friend,  after  praising  all  that  had  been  done 
in  it,  "  Happy  it  were,"  he  proceeds,  "  if  we  might  live  to 
see  the  like  in  England  :  everything  in  its  season  ;  but  in 
some  cases  it  is  as  necessary  there  be  a  time  to  forget,  as  in 
others  to  learn  ;  and  howbeit  the  peccant  (if  I  may  without 
offence  so  term  it)  humor  be  not  yet  wholly  purged  forth, 
yet  do  I  conceive  it  in  the  way,  and  that  once  rightly  cor 
rected  and  prepared,  we  may  hope  for  a  parliament  of  a 
sound  constitution  indeed  ;  but  this  must  be  the  work  of  time, 
and  of  his  majesty's  excellent  wisdom;  and  this  time  it  be 
comes  us  all  to  pray  for  and  wait  for,  and,  when  God  sends 
it,  to  make  the  right  use  of  it."  l 

These  sentiments  appear  honorable  and  constitutional. 
But  let  it  not  be  hastily  conceived  that  Strafford  was  a  friend 
to  the  necessary  and  ancient  privileges  of  those  assemblies  to 
which  he  owed  his  rise.  A  parliament  was  looked  upon  by 
him  as  a  mere  instrument  of  the  prerogative.  Hence  he 
was  strongly  against  permitting  any  mutual  understanding 
among  its  members,  by  which  they  might  form  themselves 
into  parties,  and  acquire  strength  and  confidence  by  previous 
concert.  "  As  for  restraining  any  private  meetings  either 
before  or  during  parliament,  saving  only  publicly  in  the 
house,  I  fully  rest  in  the  same  opinion,  and  shall  be  very 
watchful  and  attentive  therein  as  a  means  which  may  rid  us 
of  a  great  trouble,  and  prevent  many  stones  of  offence,  which 
otherwise  might  by  malignant  spirits  be  cast  in  among  us."  2 
And,  acting  on  this  principle,  he  kept  a  watch  on  the  Irish 
parliament  to  prevent  those  intrigues  which  his  experience 
in  England  had  taught  him  to  be  the  indispensable  means  of 
obtaining  a  control  over  the  crown.  Thus  fettered  and  kept 
in  awe,  no  one  presuming  to  take  a  lead  in  debate  from  un 
certainty  of  support,  parliaments  wrould  have  become  such 
mockeries  of  their  venerable  name  as  the  joint  contempt  of 
the  court  and  nation  must  soon  have  annihilated.  Yet  so 
difficult  is  it  to  preserve  this  dominion  over  any  representa- 

1  Strafford  Letters,  i.  420.  2  p.  246  ;  see  also  p.  370. 


CHA.  I.— 1629-40.  ABBOT   AND   LAUD.  59 

live  body,  that  the  king  judged  far  more  discreetly  than 
Strafford  in  desiring  to  dispense  entirely  with  their  attend 
ance. 

The  passages  which  I  have  thu.>  largely  quoted  will,  I 
trust,  leave  no  doubt  in  any  reader's  mind  that  the  earl  of 
Stratford  was  party  in  a  conspiracy  to  subvert  the  funda 
mental  laws  and  liberties  of  his  country.  For  here  are  not, 
as  on  his  trial,  accusations  of  words  spoken  in  heat,  uncertain 
as  to  proof,  and  of  ambiguous  interpretation  ;  nor  of  actions 
variously  reported  and  capable  of  some  explanation ;  but  the 
sincere  unbosoming  of  the  heart  in  letters  never  designed  to 
come  to  light.  And  if  we  reflect  upon  this  man's  cool- 
blooded  apostasy  on  the  first  lure  to  his  ambition,  and  on  his 
splendid  abilities,  which  enhanced  the  guilt  of  that  desertion, 
we  must  feel  some  indignation  at  those  who  have  palliated  all 
his  iniquities,  and  even  ennobled  his  memory  with  the  at 
tributes  of  patriot  heroism.  Great  he  surely  was,  since  that 
epithet  can  never  be  denied  without  paradox  to  so  much  com 
prehension  of  mind,  such  ardor  and  energy,  such  courage 
and  eloquence  ;  those  commanding  qualities  of  soul,  which, 
impressed  upon  his  dark  and  stern  countenance,  struck  his 
contemporaries  with  mingled  awe  and  hate,  and  still  live  in 
the  unfading  colors  of  Vandyke.1  But  it  may  be  reckoned 
as  a  sufficient  ground  for  distrusting  any  one's  attachment 
to  the  English  constitution,  that  he  reveres  the  name  of  the 
earl  of  Strafford. 

It  was  perfectly  consonant  to  Laud's  temper  and  principles 
of  government  to  extirpate,  as  far  as  in  him  lay,  conduct  of 
the  lurking  seeds  of  disaffection  to  the  Anglican  Laud  in  thc 

,      church  prose- 
Church.      But    the    course  he  followed    could    in  cution  of 

nature  have  no  other  tendency  than  to  give  them  Puritans- 
nourishment.  His  predecessor  Abbot  had  perhaps  connived 
to  a  limited  extent  at  some  irregularities  of  discipline  in  the 
puritanical  clergy,  judging  not  absurdly  that  their  scruples 
at  a  few  ceremonies,  which  had  been  aggravated  by  a  vexa 
tious  rigor,  would  die  away  by  degrees  and  yield  to  that  cen 
tripetal  force,  that  moral  attraction  towards  uniformity  and 
obedience  to  custom,  which  Providence  has  rendered  one  of 

i    The    unfavorable    physiognomy    of  May  says,  they  were  all  on  his  side.    The 

Strafford    is    noticed  by  writers  of  that  portraits  by  Vandyke  at  Wentworth  aud 

time.     Somers  Tracts,  iv.  231.      It  did  Petworth  are  well  known ;  the  latter  ap- 

not  prevent  him  from  being  admired  by  pears  eminently  characteristic, 
the  fair  sex,  especially  at  his  trial,  where. 


60  LAUD'S   CONDUCT   IN   THE  CHAP.  VIII. 

the  great  preservatives  of  political  society.  His  hatred  to 
popery  and  zeal  for  Calvinism,  which  undoubtedly  were  nar 
row  and  intolerant,  as  well  as  his  avowed  disapprobation  of 
those  churchmen  who  preached  up  arbitrary  power,  gained 
for  this  prelate  the  favor  of  the  party  denominated  puritan. 
In  all  these  respects  no  man  could  be  more  opposed  to  Abbot 
than  his  successor.  Besides  reviving  the  prosecutions  for 
nonconformity  in  their  utmost  strictness,  wherein  many  of  the 
other  bishops  vied  with  their  primate,  he  most  injudicious 
ly,  not  to  say  wickedly,  endeavored,  by  innovations  of  his 
own,  and  by  exciting  alarms  in  the  susceptible  consciences 
of  pious  men,  to  raise  up  new  victims  whom  he  might  op 
press.  Those  who  made  any  difficulty  about  his  novel  cere 
monies,  or  even  who  preached  on  the  Calvinistic  side,  were 
harassed  by  the  high-commission  court  as  if  they  had  been 
actual  schismatics.1  The  most  obnoxious,  if  not  the  most 
indefensible,  of  these  prosecutions  were  for  refusing  to  read 
\vhat  was  called  the  Book  of  Sports ;  namely,  a  proclama 
tion,  or  rather  a  renewal  of  that  issued  in  the  late  reign,  that 
certain  feasts  or  wakes  might  be  kept,  and  a  great  variety  of 
pastimes  used  on  Sundays  after  evening  service.'2  This  was 
reckoned,  as  I  have  already  observed,  one  of  the  tests  of 
puritanism.  But  whatever  superstition  there  might  be  in 
that  party's  judaical  observance  of  the  day  they  called  the 
sabbath,  it  was  in  itself  preposterous,  and  tyrannical  in  its 
intention,  to  enforce  the  reading  in  churches  of  this  license, 
or  rather  recommendation,  of  festivity.  The  precise  clergy 
refused  in  general  to  comply  with  the  requisition,  and  were 
suspended  or  deprived  in  consequence.  Thirty  of  them  were 

i  See  the  cases  of  Workman,  Peter  the  Somerset  assizes  by  chief-justice 

Smart.  &c.,  in  the  common  histories:  Kichardson,  at  the  request  of  the  justices 

Rush-worth,  Rapin,  Neal,  Macaulay,  Bro-  of  peace,  for  suppressing  these  feasts, 

die.  and  even  Hume,  on  one  side;  and  which  had  led  to  much  disorder  and  pro- 

for  what  can  be  said  on  the  other,  Col-  faneness.  Laud  made  the  privy  council 

Her  and  Laud's  own  defence  on  his  trial,  reprove  the  judge,  and  direct  him  to  re- 

A  number  of  persons,  doubtless  inclining  voke  the  order.  Kennet.  p.  71;  Rushw. 

to  the  puritan  side,  had  raised  a  sum  of  Abr.  ii.  166.  Heylin  says  the  gentlemen 

money  to  buy  up  impropriations,  which  of  the  county  were  against  Richardson's 

they  vested  in  trustees  for  the  purpose  order,  which  is  one  of  his  habitual  false- 

of  supporting  lecturers  :  a  class  of  min-  hoods.  See  Rushw.  Abr.  ii.  167.  I  must 

isters  to  whom  Laud  was  very  averse,  add,  however,  that  the  proclamation  was 

He  caused  the  parties  to  be  summoned  perfectly  legal,  and  according  to  the 

before  the  star-chamber,  where  their  as-  spirit  of  the  late  act,  1  Car.  I.  c.  1,  for 

gociation  was  dissolved,  and  the  impro-  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  day.  It  has 

priations  already  purchased  were  confis-  been  rather  misrepresented  by  those  who 

cated  to  the  crown.  Rushworth,  Abr.  have  not  attended  to  its  limitations  as 

ii.  17;  Neal.  i.  556.  Neal  and  Mr.  Brodie.  Dr.  Lingard,  ix. 

-  This  originated  in  an  order  made  at  422.  has  stated  the  matter  rightly. 


CHA.  I.  — 1629-40.      PROSECUTION   OF   THE   PURITANS.  Gl 

excommunicated  in  the  single  diocese  of  Norwich  ;  but  as 
that  part  of  England  was  rather  conspicuously  puritanical, 
and  the  bishop,  one  Wren,  was  the  worst  on  the  bench,  it  is 
highly  probable  that  the  general  average  fell  short  of  this.1 

Besides  the  advantage  of  detecting  a  latent  bias  in  the 
clergy,  it  is  probable  that  the  high-church  prelates  had  a 
politic  end  in  the  Book  of  Sports.  The  morose  gloomy 
spirit  of  puritanism  was  naturally  odious  to  the  young  and  to 
men  of  joyous  tempers.  The  comedies  of  that  age  are  full 
of  sneers  at  its  formality.  It  was  natural  to  think  that,  by 
enlisting  the  common  propensities  of  mankind  to  amusement 
on  the  side  of  the  established  church,  they  might  raise  a  diver 
sion  against  that  fanatical  spirit  which  can  hardly  long  con 
tinue  to  be  the  prevailing  temperament  of  a  nation.  The 
church  of  Rome,  from  which  no  ecclesiastical  statesman 
would  disdain  to  take  a  lesson,  had  for  many  ages  perceived, 
and  acted  upon  the  principle,  that  it  is  the  policy  of  govern 
ments  to  encourage  a  love  of  pastime  and  recreation  in  the 
people,  both  because  it  keeps  them  from  speculating  on  re 
ligious  and  political  matters,  and  because  it  renders  them 
more  cheerful  and  less  sensible  to  the  evils  of  their  condition  ; 
and  it  may  be  remarked  by  the  way,  that  the  oppo>ite  system 
so  long  pursued  in  this  country,  whether  from  a  puritanical 
spirit  or  from  the  wantonness  of  petty  authority,  has  no  such 
grounds  of  policy  to  recommend  it.  Thus  much  at  least  is 
certain,  that,  when  the  puritan  party  employed  their  authority 
in  proscribing  all  diversions,  in  enforcing  all  the  Jewish  rigor 
about  the  sabbath,  and  gave  that  repulsive  air  of  austerity  to 
the  face  of  England  of  which  so  many  singular  illustrations 
are  recorded,  they  rendered  their  own  yoke  intolerable  to  the 
youthful  and  gay  ;  nor  did  any  other  cause  perhaps  so  mate 
rially  contribute  to  bring  about  the  Restoration.  But  mankind 
love  sport  as  little  a<  prayer  by  compulsion ;  and  the  im 
mediate  effect  of  the  king's  declaration  was  to  produce  a  far 
more  scrupulous  abstinence  from  diversions  on  Sundays  than 
had  been  practised  before. 

The  resolution  so  evidently  taken  by  the  court  to  admit  of 
no  half-conformity  in  religion,  especially  after  Laud  had  ob 
tained  an  unlimited  sway  over  the  king's  mind,  convinced 

i  Xeal,  569;  Rushworth,  Abr.  ii.  166;  his  own  account  that  no  suspension  or 

Collier.  758;  Heylin's  Life  of  Laud,  241,  censure  was  taken  off  till  the  party  con- 

290.     The  last  writer  extenuates  the  per-  formed  and  read  the  declaration, 
secutiou  by  Wron  ;  but  it  is  evident  by 


62  EMIGRATION   TO   AMERICA.  CHAP.  VIII. 

the  puritans  that  England  could  no  longer  afford  them  an 
asylum.  The  state  of  Europe  was  not  such  as  to  encourage 
their  emigration,  though  many  were  well  received  in  Hol 
land.  But,  turning  their  eyes  to  the  newly-discovered  regions 
beyond  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  they  saw  a  secure  place  of 
refuge  from  present  tyranny,  and  a  boundless  prospect  for 
future  hope.  They  obtained  from  the  crown  the  charter  of 
Massachusetts  Bay  in  1629.  About  three  hundred  and  fifty 
persons,  chiefly  or  wholly  of  the  independent  sect,  sailed  with 
the  first  fleet.  So  many  followed  in  the  subsequent  years 
that  these  New  England  settlements  have  been  supposed  to 
have  drawn  near  half  a  million  of  money  from  the  mother- 
country  before  the  civil  wars.1  Men  of  a  higher  rank  than 
the  first  colonists,  and  now  become  hopeless  alike  of  the  civil 
and  religious  liberties  of  England,  men  of  capacious  and 
commanding  minds,  formed  to  be  the  legislators  and  generals 
of  an  infant  republic,  the  wise  and  cautious  lord  Say,  the 
acknowledged  chief  of  the  independent  sect ;  the  brave,  open, 
and  enthusiastic  lord  Brook  ;  sir  Arthur  Haslerig ;  Hamp- 
den,  ashamed  of  a  country  for  whose  rights  he  had  fought 
alone  ;  Cromwell,  panting  with  energies  that  he  could  neither 
control  nor  explain,  and  whose  unconquerable  fire  was  still 
wrapped  in  smoke  to  every  eye  but  that  of  his  kinsman 
Hampdcn,  were  preparing  to  embark  for  America,  when 
Land,  for  his  own  and  his  master's  curse,  procured  an  order 
of  council  to  stop  their  departure.2  Besides  the  reflections 
which  such  an  instance  of  destructive  infatuation  must  sug 
gest,  there  are  two  things  not  unworthy  to  be  remarked : 
first,  that  these  chief's  of  the  puritan  sect,  far  from  enter 
taining  those  schemes  of  overturning  the  government  at 
home  that  had  been  imputed  to  them,  looked  only  in  1638 
to  escape  from  imminent  tyranny ;  and,  secondly,  that  the 
views  of  the  archbishop  were  not  so  much,  to  render  the 
church  and  crown  secure  from  the  attempts  of  disaffected 
men,  as  to  gratify  a  malignant  humor  by  persecuting  them. 

1  Neal,  p.  546.     I  do  not  know  how  he  in  a  letter  to  Strafford,  ii.  169,  complains 
makes  his  computation.  of  men  running  to  New  England  when 

2  A  proclamation,  dated  May  1.  1638,  there  was  a   want  of  them   in  Ireland, 
reciting  that  the  king  was  informed  that  And  why  did  they  so,  but  that  any  track- 
many  persons  went  yearly  to  New  Eng-  less  wilderness  seemed  better   than    his 
land,  in  order  to  be  out  of  the  reach  of  own  or  his  friend's  tyranny?    In  this  let- 
ecclesiastical  authority,  commands  that  ter  he  laments  that  he  is  left  alone  in  the 
no  one  shall  pass  without  a  license  and  a  envious  and   thorny  part  of  the  work, 
testimonial  of  conformity  from  the  minis-  and  has  no  encouragement. 

ter  of  his  parish.  Ilymer,  xx.  223.    Laud. 


CHA.  I.  — 1029-40.       HOPES    OF   THE   CATHOLICS.  G3 

These  severe  proceedings  of  the  court  and  hierarchy  be 
came  more  odious  on  account  of  their  suspected   leaning,  or 
at  least  notorious  indulgence,  towards  popery.      With  some 
fluctuations,  according  to  circumstances  or  changes  Favor 
of  influence  in  the  council,  the  policy  of  Charles  shown  to 
was  to  wink  at  the  domestic  exercise  of  the  cath-  Tendency ~~ 
olic    religion,  and  to  admit  its  professors  to  pay  to  ?h.eir 

.   .  ,.  i  •    i  religion. 

compositions  for  recusancy  which  were  not  regu 
larly   enforced.1     The    catholics   willingly  submitted  to   this 
mitigated  rigor,  in  the  sanguine  expectation  of  far  Expectations 
more  prosperous  days.     I  shall,  of  course,  not  cen-  entertained 
sure  this  part  of  his  administration.      Nor  can  we  by  them> 
say  that  the   connivance   at   the   resort  of  catholics   to  the 
queen's  chapel  in   Somerset  House,  though  they  used   it  with 
much  ostentation,  and  so  as  to  give  excessive  scandal,  was  any 
more   than   a  just   sense  of  toleration  would   have  dictated.2 
Unfortunately   the    prosecution    of    other    sectaries    renders 
it  difficult  to  ascribe  such  a  liberal   principle  to  the   council 
of  Charles  I.     It  was  evidently  true,  what  the   nation   saw 
with  alarm,  that  a  proneness  to  favor  the  professors  of  this 
religion,  and    to  a  considerable  degree  the  religion  itself,  was 
at  the  bottom  of  a  conduct  so  inconsistent  with  their   system 
of   government.       The  king  had  been    persuaded  in    1635, 
through  the  influence  of  the  queen,  and  probably  of  Laud,3 
to  receive  privately,  as  an  accredited  agent  from  the  court  of 
Rome,  a  secular  priest,  named  Panzani,  whose  os-  Mission  of 
tensible  instructions  were  to  effect  a  reconciliation  l>iinaini- 
of  some  violent  differences  that  had  long  subsisted  between 

i  In  thirteen  years,  ending  with  1640,  don,  i.  261,  confirms  the  systematic  in 
fant  4080/.  was  levied  on.  recusants  by  pro-  diligence  shown  to  catholics,  which  Dr. 
cess  from  the  exchequer,  according  to  Lingard  seems,  reluctantly  and  by  silence, 
Commons'  Journals,  1  Dec.  1640.  But  to  admit. 

it  cannot  be  denied  that  they  paid  con-        2  Strafford  Letters,  i.  505,  524  :  ii.  2,  57. 
siderable  sums  by   way  of  composition.        3  Ileylin,  286.  The  very  day  of  Abbot's 

though    less    probably    than    in    former  death  an  offer  of  a   cardinal's   hat  was 

times.     Liugard,    ix.  424,   &c.,  note   G.  made  to  Laud,  as  he  tells  us  in  his  Diary, 

Weston   is   said   by   Clarendon    to    have  '•  by  one  that  avowed  ability  to  perform 

offended  the  catholics  by  enforcing  pen-  it."      This   was   repeated  some  days   af- 

alties  to  raise  the  revenue.     One  priest  terwards  ;    Aug.  4th  and  17th,  1633.     It 

only  was  executed  for  religion  before  the  seems    very    questionable    whether    this 

meeting  of  the  long  parliament.     Butler,  came  from  authority.     The  new  primate 

iv.  97.     And,    though,  for   the    sake    of  made  a  strange  answer  to  the  first  appli- 

appearance,  proclamations   for  arresting  cation,   which    might   well   encourage   a 

priests    and    recusants    sometimes    came  second ;  certainly    not  what  might  have 

forth,  they  were  always  discharged  in  a  been  expected  from  a  steady  protestant. 

short   time.     The   number   pardoned   in  If  we  did  not  read  this  in  his  own  Diary 

the  first  sixteen  years  of  the  king  is  said  we  should   not  believe  it.     The  offer  at 

to  have  amounted,  in  twenty-nine  coun-  least  proves  that  he  was  supposed  capable 

ties  only,  to  11,970.     Xeal,  604.  —  Claren-  of  acceding  to  it. 


64  MISSION   OF   PANZANI.  CHAP.  VIII. 

the  secular  and  regular  clergy  of  liis  communion.  The 
chief  motive,  however,  of  Charles  was,  as  I  believe,  so  far 
to  conciliate  the  pope  as  to  induce  him  to  withdraw  his  op 
position  to  the  oath  of  allegiance,  which  had  long  placed  the 
catholic  laity  in  a  very  invidious  condition,  and  widened  a 
breach  which  his  majesty  had  some  hopes  of  closing.  For 
this  purpose  he  offered  any  reasonable  explanation  which 
might  leave  the  oath  free  from  the  slightest  appearance  of 
infringing  the  papal  supremacy.  But  it  was  not  the  policy 
of  Rome  to  make  any  concession,  or  even  enter  into  any 
treaty,  that  might  tend  to  impair  her  temporal  authority.  It 
was  better  for  her  pride  and  ambition  that  the  English  cath 
olics  should  continue  to  hew  wood  and  draw  water,  their 
bodies  the  law's  slaves,  and  their  souls  her  own,  than,  by 
becoming  the  willing  subjects  of  a  protestant  sovereign,  that 
they  should  lose  that  sense  of  dependency  and  habitual 
deference  to  her  commands  in  all  worldly  matters,  which 
states  wherein  their  faith  stood  established  had  ceased  to 
display.  She  gave,  therefore,  no  encouragement  to  the  pro 
posed  explanations  of  the  oath  of  allegiance,  and  even  in 
structed  her  nuncio  Con,  who  succeeded  Panzani,  to  check 
the  precipitance  of  the  English  catholics  in  contributing  men 
and  money  towards  the  army  raised  against  Scotland  in 
1639.1  There  might  indeed  be  some  reasonable  suspicion 
that  the  court  did  not  play  quite  fairly  with  this  body,  and 
was  more  eager  to  extort  what  it  could  from  their  hopes  than 
to  make  any  substantial  return. 

The  favor  of  the  administration,  as  well  as  the  antipathy 
that  every  parliament  had  displayed  towards  them,  not  un 
naturally  rendered  the  catholics,  for  the  most  part,  assertors 
of  the  king's  arbitrary  power.-  This  again  increased  the 

1  Clarendon  State  Papers,  ii.  44.     It  is  as  to  the  oath  of  allegiance  ;    one  party 
always  important    to   distinguish   dates,  maintaining  that  the  king  had  a  right  to 
By  the  year  1639  the  court  of  Rome  had  put  his  own  explanation  on  that  oath, 
seen  the  fallacy  of  those  hopes  she  had  which  was  more  to  be  regarded  than  the 
previously  been  led  to  entertain,  that  the  sense  of  parliament ;  while  another  denied 
king  and  church  of  England  would  re-  that  they  could  conscientiously  admit  the 
turn  to  her  fold.     This  might  exasperate  king's  interpretation   against  what  they 
her  against  him,  as  it  certainly  did  against  knew  to  have  been  the  intention   of  the 
Laud  ;    besides  which,  I  should  suspect  legislature  who  imposed  it.    A  Mr.  Court- 
the  influence  of  Spain  in  the  conclave.  ney,  who  had  written  on  the  later  side, 

2  Proofs   of  this   abound   in   the   first  was  imprisoned  in  the  Tower,  on  pretext 
volume  of  the  collection  just  quoted,  as  of  recusancy,  but  really  for  having  pro- 
well  as  in   other  books.     The   catholics  mulgated  so  obnoxious  an  opinion.      P. 
were  not  indeed  unanimous  in  the  view  258,  et  alibi ;  Memoirs  of  Panzani,  p.  140. 
they  took  of  the  king's  prerogative,  which  The  Jesuits  were  much  against  the  oath, 
became  of  importance  in  the  controversy  and,  from,  whatever  cause,  threw  all  the 


CHA.  L  — 1629-40.    CONVERSIONS   TO   POPERY.  65 

popular  prejudice.  But  nothing  excited  so  much  alarm  as 
the  perpetual  conversions  to  their  faith.  These  had  not 
been  quite  unusual  in  any  age  since  the  Reformation, 
though  the  balance  had  been  very  much  inclined  to  the 
opposite  side.  They  became,  however,  under  Charles  the 
news  of  every  day ;  protestant  clergymen  in  several  in 
stances,  but  especially  women  of  rank,  becoming  proselytes 
to  a  religion  so  seductive  to  the  timid  reason  and  suscepti 
ble  imagination  of  that  sex.  They  whose  minds  have  never 
strayed  into  the  wilderness  of  doubt  vainly  deride  such  as 
sought  out  the  beaten  path  their  fathers  had  trodden  in  old 
times ;  they  whose  temperament  gives  little  play  to  the  fancy 
and  sentiment  want  power  to  comprehend  the  charm  of 
superstitious  illusions,  the  satisfaction  of  the  conscience  in 
the  performance  of  positive  rites,  especially  with  privation 
or  suffering,  the  victorious  self-gratulation  of  faith  in  its 
triumph  over  reason,  the  romantic  tenderness  that  loves  to 
rely  on  female  protection,  the  graceful  associations  of  devo 
tion  with  all  that  the  sense  or  the  imagination  can  require,  — 
the  splendid  vestment,  the  fragrant  censer,  the  sweet  sounds 
of  choral  harmony,  and  the  sculptured  form  that  an  intense 
piety  half  endows  with  life.  These  springs  were  touched,  as 
the  variety  of  human  character  might  require,  by  the  skil 
ful  hands  of  Romish  priests,  chiefly  Jesuits,  whose  numbers 
in  England  were  about  250,1  concealed  under  a  lay  garb, 
and  combining  the  courteous  manners  of  gentlemen  with  a 
refined  experience  of  mankind,  and  a  logic  in  whose  laby 
rinths  the  most  practical  reasoner  was  perplexed.  Against 
these  fascinating  wiles  the  puritans  opposed  other  weapons 
from  the  same  armory  of  human  nature  ;  they  awakened  the 
pride  of  reason,  the  stern  obstinacy  of  dispute,  the  names, 
so  soothing  to  the  ear,  of  free  inquiry  and  private  judgment. 
They  inspired  an  abhorrence  of  the  adverse  party  that  served 
as  a  barrier  against  insidious  approaches.  But  far  different 
principles  actuated  the  prevailing  party  in  the  church  of 
England.  A  change  had  for  some  years  been  wrought  in  its 

obstacles  they  could  in  the  way  of  a  good  trifling  for  our  notice  iu  this  place.    More 

understanding  between  the  king  and  the  than  half  Panzaui's  Memoirs  relate  to  it. 

pope.     One  reason  was  their  apprehension  i  Memoirs  of  Panzani,  p.  207.     This  is 

that  an  article  of  the  treaty  would  be  the  a  statement  by  father  Leander  ;    in  an- 

appointment  of  a  catholic  bishop  in  Eng-  other  place,   p.  140,  they  are  reckoned 

land;  a  matter  about  which  the  members  at  3*30.     There  were  about  180  other  reg- 

of  that  church  have  been  quarrelling  ever  ulars,    and  five  or  six  hundred  secular 

since    the    reign   of   Elizabeth,    but   too  priests. 
VOL.    II.                                     5 


66  TENDENCY   TO   POPERY   OF  CHAP.  VIII. 

tenets,  and  still  more  in  its  sentiments,  which,  while  it 
brought  the  whole  body  into  a  sort  of  approximation  to 
Rome,  made  many  individuals  shoot  as  it  were  from  their 
own  sphere,  on  coming  within  the  stronger  attraction  of  an 
other. 

The  charge  of  inclining  towards  popery,  brought  by  one 
of  our  religious  parties  against  Laud  and  his  colleagues  with 
invidious  exaggeration,  has  been  too  indignantly  denied  by 
another.  Much  indeed  will  depend  on  the  definition  of  that 
obnoxious  word  ;  which  one  may  restrain  to  an  acknowl 
edgment  of  the  supremacy  in  faith  and  discipline  of  the 
Roman  see  ;  while  another  comprehends  in  it  all  those  tenets 
which  were  rejected  as  corruptions  of  Christianity  at  the 
Reformation ;  and  a  third  may  extend  it  to  the  ceremonies 
and  ecclesiastical  observances  which  were  set  aside  at  the 
same  time.  In  this  last  and  most  enlarged  sense,  which  the 
vulgar  naturally  adopted,  it  is  notorious  that  all  the  innova 
tions  of  the  school  of  Laud  were  so  many  approaches,  in  the 
exterior  worship  of  the  church,  to  the  Roman  model.  Pic 
tures  were  set  up  or  repaired  ;  the  communion-table  took  the 
name  of  an  altar ;  it  was  sometimes  made  of  stone  ;  obei 
sances  were  made  to  it ;  the  crucifix  was  sometimes  placed 
upon  it ;  the  dress  of  the  officiating  priests  became  more 
gaudy  ;  churches  were  consecrated  with  strange  and  mystical 
pageantry.1  These  petty  superstitions,  which  would  of  them 
selves  have  disgusted  a  nation  accustomed  to  despise  as  well 
as  abhor  the  pompous  rites  of  the  catholics,  became  more 
alarming  from  the  evident  bias  of  some  leading  churchmen 
to  parts  of  the  Romish  theology.  The  doctrine  of  a  real 
presence,  distinguishable  only  by  vagueness  of  definition 
from  that  of  the  church  of  Rome,  was  generally  held.2  Mon- 

1  Rennet,  73:  Harris's  Life  of  Charles,  soon  afterwards,  "  Nobis  vobiscum  de  ob- 
220;  Collier,  772;  Brodie,  ii.  224,  note;  jecto  convenit,  de  modo  lis  onmis  est.  De 
Neal,  p.  572.  &c.    Laud,  in  his  defence  at  hoc  est,  fide  firma  tenemus  quod  sit,  de 
his  trial,  denies  or  extenuates  some  of  the  hoc  modo  est.  ut   sit  Per,  sive  In.  sive 
charges.     There  is,  however,  full  proof  of  Cum,  sive  Sub,  sive  TransJ  nullum  inibi 
all  that  I  have  said  in  my  text.     The  fa-  verbum  est."     I  quote  from  Casaubon's 
mous  consecration  of  St.  Catharine's  Creed  Epistles,  p.  393.  This  is,  reduced  to  plain 
church   in  1631  is   mentioned  by  Rush-  terms,  —  We  fully  agree  with  you  that 
worth,  Welwood.  and  others.     Laud  said  Christ's  body  is  actually  present  in  the 
in  his  defence  that  he  borrowed  the  cere-  sacramental  elements,  in   the  same  sense 
monies   from  Andrews,  who  had  found  as  you  use  the  word;  but  we  see  no  cause 
them  in  some  old  liturgy.  for  determining  the  precise  mode,  whether 

2  In  Bishop  Andrews's  answer  to  Bel-  by  transubstantiation  or  otherwise, 
larmine  he  says,  •'  Prsesentiam  credimus        The  doctrine  of  the  church  of  England, 
non    minus  quam  vos  veram ;  de  modo  as  evidenced  by  its  leading  ecclesiastics, 
praeseutiae  nil  temere  defiuimus."    And  underwent  a   change   in    the   reign   of 


CHA.  I.  — 1629-40.       LAUD  AND  HIS   PARTY.  67 

tagu,  bishop  of  Chichester,  already  so  conspicuous,  and  justly 
reckoned  the  chief  of  the  Romanizing  faction,  went  a  consid 
erable  length  towards  admitting  the  invocation  of  saints  ; 
prayers  for  the  dead,  which  lead  naturally  to  the  tenet  of 
purgatory,  were  vindicated  by  many  :  in  fact,  there  was 
hardly  any  distinctive  opinion  of  the  church  of  Rome  which 
had  not  its  abettors  among  the  bishops,  or  those  who  wrote 
under  their  patronage.  The  practice  of  auricular  confession, 
which  an  aspiring  clergy  must  so  deeply  regret,  was  fre 
quently  inculcated  as  a  duty.  And  Laud  gave  just  offence 
by  a  public  declaration  that  in  the  disposal  of  benefices  he 
should,  in  equal  degrees  of  merit,  prefer  single  before  mar 
ried  priests.1  They  incurred  scarcely  less  odium  by  their 
dislike  of  the  Calvinistic  system,  and  by  what  ardent  men 
construed  into  a  dereliction  of  the  protestant  cause,  a  more 
reasonable  and  less  dangerous  theory  on  the  nature  and 
reward  of  human  virtue  than  that  which  the  fanatical  and 
presumptuous  spirit  of  Luther  had  held  forth  as  the  most 
fundamental  principle  of  his  Reformation. 

It  must  be  confessed  that  these  I^nglish  theologians  were 
less  favorable  to  the  papal  supremacy  than  to  most  other 
distinguishing  tenets  of  the  catholic  church.  Yet  even  this 
they  were  inclined  to  admit  in  a  considerable  degree,  as  a 
matter  of  positive,  though  not  divine,  institution  ;  content  to 
make  the  doctrine  and  discipline  of  the  fifth  century  the  rule 
of  their  bastard  reform.  An  extreme  reverence  for  what 
they  called  the  primitive  church  had  been  the  source  of  their 

James,  through  Andrews,  Casaubon,  and  I  believe,  used  by  our  writers  of  the  16th 

others,  who  deferred  wholly  to  antiquity,  age,  but  as  synonymous  with   corporal, 

In   fact,  as   I  have  elsewhere  observed,  and  consequently  is  condemned  by  them, 

there  can  be  but  two  opinions,  neglecting  Cranmer  calls  it  '•  that  error  of  the  real 

subordinate  differences,  on  this    famous  presence, ';  i.  Ixxv.     Jewel  challenges  his 

controversy.      It   is  clear  to  those  who  adversary  to  produce  any  authority  for 

have  attended  to    the  subject   that   the  those  words  from  the  fathers.     I  do  not 

Anglican  reformers  did  not  hold  a  local  know  when  it  came  into  use ;  probably 

presence  of  Christ's  human  body  in  the  under    James,    or,    it    may    be,    rather 

consecrated  bread  itself,  independent  of  earlier.] 

the  communicant,  or,  as   the   technical  1  Heylin's  Life   of  Laud,   p.  212.     He 

phrase  was,  extra  usum  :  and  it  is  also  probably  imbibed  this,  like  many  other 

clear  that  the  divines  of  the  latter  school  of  his  prejudices,  from  bishop  Andrews, 

did  so.     This  question  is  rendered  intri-  whose   epitaph    in    the    church    of   St. 

cate  at  first  sight,  partly  by  the  strong  Saviour's  in  Southwark  speaks  of  him  as 

figurative  language  which  the  early  re-  having   received    a  superior    reward    in 

formers  employed  in  order  to  avoid  shock-  heaven  on  account  of  his  celibacy;  coe- 

ing  the  prejudices  of  the   people;    and  lebs    migravit    ad    aureolam    coelestem. 

partly  by  the    incautious  and  even  ab-  Biog.  Britannica.     Aureola,  a  word  of  no 

surd   use  of  the  word  real  presence   to  classical  authority,  means,  in   the  style 

mean    real  absence  ;    which  is   common  of  popish  divinity  which  the  author  of 

with  modern  theologians.  this  epitaph  thought  fit  to  employ,  the 

[The  phrase  ';  real  presence  "  is  never,  crown  of  virginity.  See  Du  Cauge  in  voc. 


68  BISHOP  ANDREWS.  CHAP.  VIII. 

errors.  The  first  reformers  had  paid  little  regard  to  that 
authority.  But  as  learning,  by  which  was  then  meant  an 
acquaintance  with  ecclesiastical  antiquity,  grew  more  general 
in  the  church,  it  gradually  inspired  more  respect  for  itself; 
and  men's  judgment  in  matters  of  religion  came  to  be  meas 
ured  by  the  quantity  of  their  erudition.1  The  sentence  of 
the  early  writers,  including  the  fifth  and  perhaps  sixth  centu 
ries,  if  it  did  not  pass  for  infallible,  was  of  prodigious  weight 
in  controversy.  No  one  in  the  English  church  seems  to 
have  contributed  so  much  towards  this  relapse  into  supersti 
tion  as  Andrews,  bishop  of  Winchester,  a  man  of  eminent 
learning  in  this  kind,  who  may  be  reckoned  the  founder  of 
the  school  wherein  Laud  was  the  most  prominent  disciple.2 

A  characteristic  tenet  of  this  party  was,  as  I  have  already 
observed,  that  episcopal  government  was  indispensably  requi 
site  to  a  Christian  church.3  Hence  they  treated  the  presby- 
terians  with  insolence  abroad  and  severity  at  home.  A  brief 
to  be  read  in  churches  for  the  sufferers  in  the  Palatinate 
having  been  prepared,  wherein  they  were  said  to  profess 
the  same  religion  as  ourselves,  Laud  insisted  on  this  being 
struck  out.4  The  Dutch  and  Walloon  churches  in  England, 
which  had  subsisted  since  the  Reformation,  and  which  va 
rious  motives  of  policy  had  led  Elizabeth  to  protect,  were 
harassed  by  the  primate  and  other  bishops  for  their  want  of 
conformity  to  the  Anglican  ritual.5  The  English  ambassa 
dor,  instead  of  frequenting  the  Hugonot  church  at  Charenton, 
as  had  been  the  former  practice,  was  instructed  to  disclaim 

1  See    Life    of    Hammond  in   Words-  writings  against  Perron  he  throws  away 
worth's    Eocles.  Biography,  vol.  v.   343.  a  great   part  of  what  have  always  been 
It  had  been  usual  to   study  divinity  in  considered  the  protestant  doctrines. 
compendiums,  chiefly  drawn   up  in  the  3  Hall,  bishop  of  Exeter,  a  very  con- 
sixteenth  century.      King   James  was  a  siderable  person,  wrote  a  treatise  on  the 
great  favorer  of  antiquity,  and  prescribed  Divine  Institution  of  Episcopacy,  which, 
the  study  of  the  fathers  in  his  Instruc-  according  to  an  analysis  given  by  Heylin 
tions  to  the  Universities  in  1616.  and  others  of  its  leading  positions,  is  so 

2  Andrews  gave  scandal  in  the  queen's  much  in  the  teeth  of  Hooker's  Ecclesi- 
reign  by  preaching  at  court  ''  that  con-  astical  Polity,  that  it  might  pass  for  an 
trition,   without  confession   and  absolu-  answer  to  it.     Yet  it  did  not  quite  come 
tion,   and  deeds   worthy  of  repentance,  up  to  the  primate's  standard,  who  made 
was  not  sufficient ;  that  the  ministers  had  him  alter  some  passages  which  looked  too 
the  two  keys  of  power  and  knowledge  de-  like  concessions.     Heylin's  Life  of  Laud, 
livered  unto  them  ;  that  whose  sins  so-  374 ;   Collier,  789.      One   of  his  offences 
ever  they  remitted  upon  earth  should  be  was  the  asserting  the   pope    to  be  Anti- 
remitted  in  heaven.  —  The  court  is  full  Christ,  which  displeased  the  king  as  well 
of  it,  for  such  doctrine  was  not  usually  as  primate,  though  it  had  been  orthodox 
taught  there."     Sidney,  Letters,  ii.  185.  under  James. 

Harrington  also  censures  him  for  an  at-        4  Collier,  764  ;  Neal,  582  ;  Heylin,  288. 
tempt  to  bring  in  auricular  confession.         5  Collier,  753 ;  Heylin,  260. 
Nugas  Antiquas,   ii.   192.      In   his  own 


CIIA.  I.  — 1629-40.      FOREIGN   REFORMED   CHURCHES.  09 

all  fraternity  with  their  sect,  and  set  up  in  his  own  chapel 
the  obnoxious  altar  and  the  other  innovations  of  the  hier 
archy.1  These  impolitic  and  insolent  proceedings  gave  the 
foreign  protestants  a  hatred  of  Charles,  which  they  retained 
through  all  his  misfortunes. 

This  alienation  from  the  foreign  churches  of  the  reformed 
persuasion  had  scarcely  so  important  an  effect  in  begetting  a 
predilection  for  that  of  Rome,  as  the  language  frequently 
held  about  the  Anglican  separation.  It  became  usual  for 
our  churchmen  to  lament  the  precipitancy  with  which  the 
Reformation  had  been  conducted,  and  to  inveigh  against  its 
principal  instruments.  The  catholic  writers  had  long  des 
canted  on  the  lust  and  violence  of  Henry,  the  pretended 
licentiousness  of  Anne  Boleyn,  the  rapacity  of  Cromwell,  the 
pliancy  of  Cranmer :  sometimes  with  great  truth,  but  with 
much  of  invidious  misrepresentation.  These  topics,  which 
have  no  kind  of  operation  on  men  accustomed  to  sound 
reasoning,  produce  an  unfailing  effect  on  ordinary  minds. 
Nothing  incurred  more  censure  than  the  dissolution  of  the 
monastic  orders,  or  at  least  the  alienation  of  their  endow 
ments  ;  acts  accompanied,  as  we  must  all  admit,  with  great 
rapacity  and  injustice,  but  which  the  new  school  branded 
with  the  name  of  sacrilege.  Spelman,  an  antiquary  of  emi 
nent  learning,  was  led  by  bigotry  or  subserviency  to  compose 
a  wretched  tract  called  the  History  of  Sacrilege,  with  a  view 
to  confirm  the  vulgar  superstition  that  the  possession  of  es- 

i  Clarendon,  iii.  366;  State  Papers,  i.  "To  think  well  of  the  reformed  re- 
338.  "  Lord  Scudamore,  the  English  ligion,"  says  Northumberland,  in  1640, 
ambassador,  set  up  an  altar,  &c.,  in  the  u  is  enough  to  make  the  archbishop  an 
Laudean  style.  His  successor,  lord  Lei-  enemy  ;  and  though  he  cannot  for  shame 
cester,  spoke  to  the  archbishop  about  go-  do  it  in  public,  yet  in  private  he  will  do 
ing  to  Charentou  ;  and  telling  him  lord  Leicester  all  the  mischief  he  can."  Col- 
Scudamore  did  never  go  thither,  Laud  lins's  Sidney  Papers,  ii.  623. 
answered,  "  He  is  the  wiser/'  Leicester  Such  was  the  opinion  entertained  of 
requested  his  advice  what  he  should  do,  Laud  by  those  who  could  not  reasonably 
iu  order  to  sift  his  disposition,  being  be  called  puritans,  except  by  such  as 
himself  resolved  how  to  behave  in  that  made  that  word  a  synonym  for  protes- 
matter.  But  the  other  would  only  say  tant.  It  would  be  easy  to  add  other 
that  he  left  it  to  his  discretion.  Leicester  proofs.  The  prosecution  in  the  star- 
says,  he  has  many  reasons  to  think  that  chamber  against  Sherfield,  recorder  of 
for  his  going  to  Charenton  the  archbishop  Salisbury,  for  destroying  some  supersti- 
did  him  all  the  ill  offices  he  could  to  the  tious  pictures  in  a  church,  led  to  a  dis 
king,  representing  him  as  a  puritan,  and  play  of  the  aversion  many  of  the  council 
consequently  in  his  method  an  enemy  to  entertained  for  popery  and  their  jealousy 
monarchical  government,  though  he  had  of  the  archbishop's  bias.  They  were  with 
not  been  very  kind  before.  The  said  arch-  difficulty  brought  to  condemn  Sherfield, 
bishop,  he  adds,  would  not  countenance  and  passed  a  sentence  at  last  very  unlike 
Blondel's  book  against  the  usurped  power  those  to  which  they  were  accustomed, 
of  the  pope."  Bleucowe's  Sidney  Papers,  Rushworth;  State  Trials.  Hume  misrep- 
261.  resents  the  case. 


70  LAUD'S   OBJECT.  CHAP.  VIII. 

tates  alienated  from  the  church  entailed  a  sure  curse  on  the 
usurper's  posterity.  There  is  some  reason  to  suspect  that 
the  king  entertained  a  project  of  restoring  all  impropriated 
hereditaments  to  the  church. 

It  is  alleged  by  one  who  had  much  access  to  Laud,  that 
his  object  in  these  accommodations  was  to  draw  over  the 
more  moderate  Romanists  to  the  English  church,  by  exten 
uating  the  differences  of  her  faith,  and  rendering  her  worship 
more  palatable  to  her  prejudices.1  There  was,  however,  good 
reason  to  suspect,  from  the  same  writer's  account,  that  some 
leading  ecclesiastics  entertained  schemes  of  a  complete  re 
union  ;  -  and  later  discoveries  have  abundantly  confirmed  this 
suspicion.  Such  schemes  have  doubtless  been  in  the  minds 
of  men  not  inclined  to  offer  every  sacrifice  ;  and  during  this 
very  period  Grotius  was  exerting  his  talents  (whether  judi 
ciously  or  otherwise  we  need  not  inquire)  to  make  some  sort 
of  reconciliation  and  compromise  appear  practicable.3  But 
we  now  know  that  the  views  of  a  party  in  the  English 
church  were  much  more  extensive,  and  went  almost  to  an 
entire  dereliction  of  the  protestant  doctrine. 

The  catholics  did  not  fail  to  anticipate  the  most  favorable 
consequences  from  this  turn  in  the  church.  The  Clarendon 
State  Papers,  and  many  other  documents,  contain  remarka 
ble  proofs  of  their  sanguine  and  not  unreasonable  hopes. 
Weston  the  lord  treasurer,  and  Cottington,  were  already  in 
secret  of  their  persuasion ;  though  the  former  did  not  take 
much  pains  to  promote  their  interests.  No  one,  however, 
showed  them  such  decided  favor  as  secretary  Windebank, 
through  whose  hands  a  correspondence  was  carried  on  with 
the  court  of  Rome  by  some  of  its  agents.4  They  exult  in 
the  peaceful  and  flourishing  state  of  their  religion  in  England 
as  compared  with  former  times.  The  recusants,  they  write, 
were  not  molested  ;  and  if  their  compositions  were  enforced, 

i  Heylin's  Life  of  Laud,  390.  Windebank.  1633.  to  have  a  case  of  books 

-  Id.  388.  The  passage  is  very  remark-  restored,  that  had  been  carried  from  the 

able,  but  too  long  to  be  extracted  in  a  custom-house  to  archbishop  Abbot.  — 

work  not  directly  ecclesiastical.  It  is  "  Now  he  is  dead  I  make  this  demand 

rather  ambiguous  ;  but  the  Memoirs  of  upon  his  effects  and  library  that  they 

Panzani  afford  the  key.  may  be  restored  to  me;  as  his  majesty ;a 

a  [I  should  now  think  less  favorably  order  at  that  time  was  ineffectual,  as  well 

of  Grotius,  and  suspect  that  he  would  as  its  appearing  that  there  was  nothing 

ultimately  have  made  every  sacrifice,  contraband  or  prohibited."  A  list  of 

See  Hist,  of  Literature  of  loth,  16th,  and  these  books  follows,  and  is  curious.  They 

17th  centuries,  vol.  iii.  p.  58  (first  edi-  consisted  of  English  popish  tracts  by 

tion).  1845.]  wholesale,  intended,  of  course,  for  circu- 

•*  The  Spanish  ambassador  applies  to  lation.     Clar.  State  Papers,  66. 


CHA.  I.  —  1029-40.       MISSION   OF   PAXZAXI.  71 

it  was  rather  from  the  king's  want  of  money  than  any  desire 
to  injure  their  religion.  Their  rites  were  freely  exercised  in 
the  queen's  chapel  and  those  of  ambassadors,  and,  more  pri 
vately,  in  the  houses  of  the  rich.  The  church  of  England 
was  no  longer  exasperated  against  them;  if  there  was  ever 
any  prosecution,  it  was  to  screen  the  king  from  the  reproach 
of  the  puritans.  They  drew  a  flattering  picture  of  the  res- 
ipiscence  of  the  Anglican  party ;  who  are  come  to  acknowl 
edge  the  truth  in  some  articles,  and  differ  in  others  rather 
verbally  than  in  substance,  or  in  points  not  fundamental  ; 
who  hold  all  other  protestants  to  be  schismatical,  and  confess 
the  primacy  of  the  holy  see,  regretting  the  separation  al 
ready  made,  and  wishing  for  reunion  ;  who  profess  to  pay 
implicit  respect  to  the  fathers,  and  can  best  be  assailed  on 
that  side.1 

These  letters  contain,  no  doubt,  a  partial  representation  ; 
that  is,  they  impute  to  the  Anglican  clergy  in  general  what 
was  only  true  of  a  certain  number.  Their  aim  was  to  in 
spire  the  court  of  Rome  with  more  favorable  views  of  that 
of  England,  and  thus  to  pave  the  way  for  a  permission  of 
the  oath  of  allegiance,  at  least  with  some  modification  of  its 
terms.  Such  flattering  tales  naturally  excited  the  hopes  of 
the  Vatican,  and  contributed  to  the  mission  of  Panzani,  who 
was  instructed  to  feel  the  pulse  of  the  nation,  and  communi 
cate  more  unbiased  information  to  his  court  than  could  be 
expected  from  the  English  priests.  He  confirmed,  by  his 
letters,  the  general  truth  of  the  former  statements,  as  to  the 
tendency  of  the  Anglican  church,  and  the  favorable  disposi 
tions  of  the  court.  The  king  received  him  secretly,  but  with 
much  courtesy  ;  the  queen  and  the  catholic  ministers,  Cot- 
tington  and  Windebank,  with  unreserved  confidence.  It 
required  all  the  adroitness  of  an  Italian  emissary  from  the 
subtlest  of  courts  to  meet  their  demonstrations  of  friendship 
without  too  much  committing  his  employers.  Nor  did  Pan 
zani  altogether  satisfy  the  pope,  or  at  least  his  minister,  car 
dinal  Barberini,  in  this  respect.2 

1  Clarendon  State  Papers,  197,  &c.  pendent    or   person    in    his    confidence. 

2  Id.  249.     The   Memoirs   of  Panzani,  Their    truth,    as    well    as    authenticity, 
after  furnishing  some  materials  to  Dodd's  appears  to  me  quite  beyond  controversy  ; 
Church  History,  were  published  by  Mr.  they  coincide,  in  a  remarkable  manner, 
Berington,  in  1794.     They  are,  however,  with    all    our    other    information  ;    the 
become  scarce,  and  have  not  been  much  names  and  local  details  are  particularly 
quoted      It  is  plain  that  they  were  not  accurate  for  the  work  of  a  foreigner ;  in 
Lis  own  work,  but  written  by  some  de-  short,  they  contain  no  one   fact  of  any 


72 


IXTKIGUE   OF   BISHOP  MONTAGU.      CHAP.  VIII. 


During  the  residence  of  Panzani  in  England,  an  extraor 
dinary  negotiation  was  commenced  for  the  reconciliation  of 
the  church  of  England  with  that  of  Rome  ;  and,  as  this  fact, 
though  unquestionable,  is  very  little  known,  I  may  not  be 
thought  to  digress  in  taking  particular  notice  of  it.  Winde- 
bank  and  lord  Cottington  were  the  first  movers  in  that  busi 
ness  ;  both  calling  themselves  to  Panzani  catholics,  as  in  fact 
they  were,  but  claiming  all  those  concessions  from  the  see  of 
Home  which  had  been  sometimes  held  out  in  the  preceding 
century.  Bishop  Montagu  soon  made  himself  a 
party,  and  had  several  interviews  with  Panzani. 
He  professed  the  strongest  desire  for  a  union,  and 
added,  that  he  was  satisfied  both  the  archbishops, 
the  bishop  of  London,  and  several  others  of  that  order,  be 
sides  many  of  the  inferior  clergy,  were  prepared  to  acknowl- 


Intrigue 
of  bishop 
Montagu 
with  Pan 
zani. 


consequence  which  there  is  reason  to 
distrust.  Some  account  of  them  may 
be  found  in  Butler's  Enjrl.  Cath.  vol.  iv. 

A  small  tract,  entitled  "  The  Pope's 
Nuncio,''  printed  in  1643,  and  said  to  be 
founded  on  the  information  of  the  Vene 
tian  ambassador,  is,  as  I  conceive,  derived 
in  some  direct  or  indirect  manner  from 
these  Memoirs.  It  is  republished  in  the 
Somers'  Tracts,  vol.  iv. 

Mr.  Butler  has  published,  for  the  first 
time,  a  long  and  important  extract  from 
Panzani's  own  report  to  the  pope  con 
cerning  the  state  of  the  catholic  reliirion 
in  England.  Mem.  of  Catholics,  iv.  55. 
He  reckons  them  at  150,000;  many  of 
them,  however,  continuing  so  outwardly 
to  live  as  not  to  be  known  for  such, 
among  whom  are  many  of  the  first  no 
bility.  From  them  the  neighboring  cath 
olics  have  no  means  of  hearing  mass  or 
going  to  the  sacraments.  Others,  more 
bold,  give  opportunity,  more  or  less,  to 
their  poorer  neighbors  to  practise  their 
duty.  Besides  these  there  are  others, 
who,  apprehensive  of  losing  their  proper 
ty  or  places,  live  in  appearance  as  protes- 
tants,  take  the  oaths  of  supremacy  and 
allegiance,  frequent  the  churches,  and 
speak  occasionally  against  catholics;  yet 
in  their  hearts  are  such,  and  sometimes 
keep  priests  in  their  houses,  that  they 
may  not  be  without  help  if  necessary. 
Among  them  he  includes  some  of  the  first 
nobility,  secular  and  ecclesiastical,  and 
many  of  every  rank.  While  he  was  in 
London,  almost  all  the  nobility  who  died, 
though  reputed  protestants,  died  catho 
lics.  The  bishops  are  protestants,  except 
four,  Durham,  Salisbury,  Rochester,  and 
Oxford,  who  are  puritans.  The  latter 
are  most  numerous  among  the  people, 


and  are  more  hated  by  moderate  protes 
tants  than  are  the  catholics.  A  great 
change  is  apparent  in  books  and  sermons 
compared  with  former  times  :  auricular 
confession  praised,  images  well  spoken  of, 
and  altars.  The  pope  is  owned  as  patri 
arch  of  the  West;  and  wishes  are  ex 
pressed  for  reunion.  The  queen  has  a 
public  chapel  besides  her  private  one, 
where  service  is  celebrated  with  much 
pomp  :  also  the  ambassadors ;  and  there 
are  others  in  London.  The  laws  against 
recusants  are  much  relaxed ;  though 
sometimes  the  king,  being  in  want  of 
money,  takes  one  third  of  their  incomes 
by  way  of  composition.  The  cntholics 
are  yet  molested  by  the  pursuivants,  who 
enter  their  houses  in  search  of  priests  or 
sacred  vessels  :  and  though  this  evil  was 
not  much  felt  while  he  was  in  London, 
they  might  be  set  at  work  at  any  time. 
He  determined  therefore,  to  obtain,  if 
possible,  a  general  order  from  the  king  to 
restrain  the  pursuivants  ;  and  the  busi 
ness  was  put  into  the  hands  of  some 
councillors,  but  not  settled  at  his  depar 
ture.  The  oath  of  allegiance  divided  the 
ecclesiastics,  the  major  part  refusing  to 
take  it.  After  a  good  deal  about  the  ap 
pointment  of  a  catholic  bishop  in  Eng 
land,  he  mentions  father  Davenport  or 
Sancta  Clara's  book,  entitled  Deus,  Na- 
tura,  Gratia,  with  which  the  king,  he 
says,  had  been  pleased,  and  was  therefore 
disappointed  at  finding  it  put  in  the  In 
dex  Expurgatorius  at  Rome.  — This  book, 
which  made  much  noise  at  the  time,  was 
an  attempt  to  show  the  compatibility  of 
the  Anglican  doctrines  with  those  of  thf> 
catholic  church  ;  the  usual  trick  of  popish 
intriguers.  See  an  abstract  of  it  in  Stil- 
liugtieet's  Works,  vol.  v.  p.  176. 


CHA.  I.  — 1629-40.     THREE  GREAT  POINTS  OF  DISCIPLINE.     73 

edge  the  spiritual  supremacy  of  the  holy  see ;  there  being  no 
method  of  ending  controversies  but  by  recurring  to  some 
centre  of  ecclesiastical  unity.  For  him.self,  he  knew  no  tenet 
of  the  Roman  church  to  which  he  would  not  subscribe,  unless 
it  were  that  of  transubstantiation,  though  he  had  some  scruples 
as  to  communion  in  one  kind.  But  a  congress  of  moderate 
and  learned  men,  chosen  on  each  side,  might  reduce  the  dis 
puted  points  into  small  compass,  and  confer  upon  them. 

This  overture  being  communicated  to  Rome  by  its  agent, 
was,  of  course,  too  tempting  to  be  disregarded,  though  too 
ambiguous  to  be  snatched  at.  The  reunion  of  England  to 
the  catholic  church,  in  itself  a  most  important  advantage, 
might,  at  that  particular  juncture,  during  the  dubious  strug 
gle  of  the  protestant  religion  in  Germany,  and  its  still  more 
precarious  condition  in  France,  very  probably  reduce  its  ad 
herents  throughout  Europe  to  a  proscribed  and  persecuted 
sect.  Panzani  was,  therefore,  instructed  to  flatter  Montagu's 
vanity,  to  manifest  a  great  desire  for  reconciliation,  but  not  to 
favor  any  discussion  of  controverted  points,  which  had  always 
proved  fruitless,  and  which  could  not  be  admitted  till  the  su 
preme  authority  of  the  holy  see  was  recognized.  As  to  all 
usages  founded  on  positive  law,  which  might  be  disagreeable 
to  the  English  nation,  they  should  receive  as  much  mitigation 
as  the  case  would  bear.  This,  of  course,  alluded  to  the  three 
great  points  of  discipline,  or  ecclesiastical  institution  —  the 
celibacy  of  the  clergy,  the  exclusion  of  the  laity  from  the 
eucharistical  cup,  and  the  Latin  liturgy. 

In  the  course  of  the  bishop's  subsequent  interviews,  he 
again  mentioned  his  willingness  to  acknowledge  the  pope's 
supremacy  ;  and  assured  Panzani  that  the  archbishop  was 
entirely  of  his  mind,  but  with  a  great  mixture  of  fear  and 
caution.1  Three  bishops  only,  Morton,  Hall,  and  Davenant, 
were  obstinately  bent  against  the  church  of  Rome  ;  the  rest 
might  be  counted  moderate.2  The  agent,  however,  took  care 

1  If  we  may  believe  Heylin,  the  queen  thority,  in  a  late  work,  be  true,  he  was 
prevailed  on  Laud   to  use  his  influence  at  that  time  sufficiently  inclined  to  have 
with  the  king  that  Pan/ani  might  come  accepted  a  cardinal's  hat.  and  made  in 
to  London,    promising    to  be  his  friend,  terest  for  it.     Blencowe's  Sidney  Papers, 
Life  of  Laud.  286.  p.  262.     One  bishop,  Goodman  of  Glou- 

2  P.  246.     It  may  seem  extraordinary  cester,  was  undoubtedly  a  Roman  catho- 
that  he  did  not  mention  Williams  :  but  I  lie,  and  died   in   that  communion.     He 
presume  he  took  that  political   bishop's  refused,  for  a  long  time,  to  subscribe  the 
zeal  to  be  insincere.     Williams  had  been,  canons  of  1640,  on  account  of  one  that 
while  in  power,  a  great   favorer  of  the  contained  a  renunciation  of  popery  ;  but 
toleration  of  papists.     If,  indeed,  a  story  yielded  at  length  for  fear  of  suspension, 
told  of  him,  on  Eudymion  Porter's  au-  and  charged  Montagu  with  having  iusti- 


74  CONSTANCY   OF   THE  KING.  CHAP.  VIII. 

to  obtain  from  another  quarter  a  more  particular  account  of 
each  bishop's  disposition,  and  transmitted  to  Rome  a  report, 
which  does  not  appear.  Montagu  displayed  a  most  un 
guarded  warmth  in  all  this  treaty  ;  notwithstanding  which, 
Panzani  suspected  him  of  still  entertaining  some  notions  in 
compatible  with  the  catholic  doctrine.  He  behaved  with 
much  greater  discretion  than  the  bishop  ;  justly,  I  suppose, 
distrusting  the  influence  of  a  man  who  showed  so  little 
capacity  for  a  business  of  the  utmost  delicacy.  It  appears 
almost  certain  that  Montagu  made  too  free  with  the  name  of 
the  archbishop,  and  probably  of  many  others  ;  and  it  is  well 
worthy  of  remark,  that  the  popish  party  did  not  entertain 
any  sanguine  hopes  of  the  king's  conversion.  They  ex 
pected  doubtless  that,  by  gaining  over  the  hierarchy,  they 
should  induce  him  to  follow  ;  but  he  had  evidently  given  no 
reason  to  imagine  that  he  would  precede.  A  few  casual 
words,  not  perhaps  exactly  reported,  might  sometimes  elate 
their  hopes,  but  cannot  excite  in  us,  who  are  better  able  to 
judge  than  his  contemporaries,  any  reasonable  suspicion  of 
his  constancy.  Yet  it  is  not  impossible  that  he  might  at  one 
time  conceive  a  union  to  be  more  practicable  than  it  really 
was.1 

The  court  of  Rome,  however,  omitted  no  token  of  civility 
or  good-will  to  conciliate  our  king's  favor.  Besides  expres 
sions  of  paternal  kindness  which  Urban  lavished  on  him, 

gated  his  refusal,  though  he  subscribed  que  s'il  pouvoit  arriver  a  ce  point,  il  y 

himself.     Nalson,  i.  371 ;  Ilushw.  Abr.  iii.  auroit  si  peu  de  difference  de  la  foi  ortho- 

168;  Collier,  793;  Laud's  defence  on  his  doxe  a  la  leur,  qu'il  seroit  aise  peu  a peu 

trial.  d'y  conduire  le  roi.     Pour  travailler  a  ce 

i  Henrietta  Maria,  in  her  communica-  grand  ouvrage,  que  ne  paroissoit  au  roi 

tioii  to  Madame  de  Motteville,   has  the  d'Angleterre  que  leretablissement  parfait 

following   passage,   which   is   not    unde-  de  la  liturgie.  et  qui  est  le  seul  dessein 

serving  of  notice,  though  she  may  have  qui  ait  ete  dans  le  coeur  de  ce  prince, 

been  deceived :  —  "  Le  Roi  Jacques  .  .  .  1'archeveque  de  Cantorberi  lui  conseilla 

composa  deux  livres  pour  la  defense  de  de  commencer  par  1'Ecosse,  comme  plus 

la  fausse  religion  d'Angleterre,  et  fit  re-  eloignee  du  coeur  du  royaume ;  lui  disaut. 

pouse  a  ceux  que  le  cardinal  du   Perron  que  leur  remuement  seroit  moins  a  crain- 

ecrivit  centre  lui.    Eu  defendant  le  men-  dre.     Le  roi,  avant  que  departir.  voulant 

songe,  il  concut  de  Pamour  pour  la  verite,  envoyer  cette  liturgie  en  1'Ecosse,  Pappor- 

et  souhaita  de  se  retirer  de  1'erreur.     Ce  ta  un  soir  dans  la  chambre  de  la  reine.  et 

fut  en  voulaut  accorder  les   deux  reli-  la  pria  de  lire  ce  livre,  lui  disant.  qu'il 

gions,   la   uotre  et   la   sienne  ;    mais    il  seroit  bien  aise  qu'elle  le  vit,  afiu  qu'elle 

mourut  avant  que  d'executer  ce  louable  silt  combien  ilsapprochoient  decreance." 

dessein.     Le  Roi  Charles  Stuard,  son  fils,  Mem.  de  Motteville,   i.  242.     A  well-in- 

quand  il  viut  a  la  couronne,  se  trouva  formed  writer,  however,  says  Charles  was 

presque  dans   les  memes  sentimens.     II  a  protestant  and  never  liked  the  catholic 

avoit  aupres  de  lui  1'archeveque  de  Can-  religion      P.Orleans,  Revolut.  d'Anglet. 

torberi,  qui,  dans  son  coeur  etant  tres-bon  iii.  35.     He  says  the  same  of  Laud,  but 

catholique,  inspira  au  roi  son  maitre  un  refers   to  Vittorio    Siri    for  an  opposite 

grand  desir  de  retablir  la  liturgie,  croyant  story. 


CHA.  I.  — 1029-40.         COX,   POPE'S   LEGATE.  75 

cardinal  Barberini  gratified  his  well-known  taste  by  a  present 
of  pictures.  Charles  showed  a  due  sense  of  these  courtesies. 
The  prosecutions  of  recusants  were  absolutely  stopped,  by 
cashiering  the  pursuivants  who  had  been  employed  in  the 
odious  office  of  detecting  them.  It  was  arranged  that  re 
ciprocal  diplomatic  relations  should  be  established,  and  conse 
quently  that  an  English  agent  should  constantly  reside  at  the 
court  of  Rome,  by  the  nominal  appointment  of  the  queen, 
but  empowered  to  conduct  the  various  negotiations  in  hand. 
Through  the  first  person  who  held  this  station,  a  gentleman 
of  the  name  of  Hamilton,  the  king  made  an  overture  on  a 
matter  very  near  to  his  heart,  the  restitution  of  the  Palati 
nate.  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  whole  of  his  imprudent 
tampering  with  Rome  had  been  considerably  influenced  by 
this  chimerical  hope.  But  it  was  apparent  to  every  man  of 
less  unsound  judgment  than  Charles,  that  except  the  young 
elector  would  renounce  the  protestant  faith,  he  could  expect 
nothing  from  the  intercession  of  the  pope. 

After  the  first  preliminaries,  which  she  could  not  refuse  to 
enter  upon,  the  court  of  Rome  displayed  no  eagerness  for  a 
treaty  which  it  found,  on  more  exact  information,  to  be  em 
barrassed  with  greater  difficulties  than  its  new  allies  had  con 
fessed.1  Whether  this  subject  continued  to  be  discussed 
during  the  mission  of  Con,  who  succeeded  Panzani,  is  hard 
to  determine ;  because  the  latter's  memoirs,  our  unquestiona 
ble  authority  for  what  has  been  above  related,  cease  to  afford 
us  light.  But  as  Con  was  a  very  active  intriguer  for  his 
court,  it  is  by  no  means  unlikely  that  he  proceeded  in  the 
same  kind  of  parley  with  Montagu  and  Windebank.  Yet 
wrhatever  might  pass  between  them  was  intended  rather  with 
a  view  to  the  general  interests  of  the  Roman  church,  than  to 
promote  a  reconciliation  with  that  of  England,  as  a  separate 
contracting  party.  The  former  has  displayed  so  systematic 
a  policy  to  make  no  concession  to  the  reformers,  either  in 
matters  of  belief,  wherein,  since  the  council  of  Trent,  she 
could  in  fact  do  nothing,  or  even,  as  far  as  possible,  in  points 
of  discipline,  as  to  which  she  judged,  perhaps  rightly,  that 

i  Cardinal    Barberini  wrote   word    to  tives  for  it,  and  that  the  whole  world  was 

Panzani,  that  the  proposal  of  Windebank  against    them    on    the    first-mentioned 

that  the  church  of  Rome  should  sacrifice  points  :  p.  173.     This  is  exactly  what  any 

communion  in  one  kind,  the  celibacy  of  one  might   predict   who   knew   the  long 

the   clergy,    &c.,    would    never    please  ;  discussions  on   the  subject  with  Austria 

that   the  English  ought  to  look  back  on  and  France  at  the  time  of  the  council  of 

the  breach  they  had  made,  and  their  nio-  Trent. 


7G  BOLDNESS   OF   THE   CATHOLIC  PARTY.      CHAP.  VIII. 

her  authority  would  be  impaired  by  the  precedent  of  conces 
sion  without  any  proportionate  advantage  ;  so  unvarying  in 
all  cases  has  been  her  determination  to  yield  nothing  except 
through  absolute  force,  and  to  elude  force  itself  by  every 
subtlety  ;  that  it  is  astonishing  how  honest  men  on  the  op 
posite  side  (men,  that  is,  who  seriously  intended  to  preserve 
any  portion  of  their  avowed  tenets),  could  ever  contemplate 
the  possibility  of  reconciliation.  Upon  the  present  occasion, 
she  manifested  some  alarm  at  the  boasted  approximation  of 
the  Anglicans.  The  attraction  of  bodies  is  reciprocal ;  and 
the  English  catholics  might,  with  so  much  temporal  interest 
in  the  scale,  be  impelled  more  rapidly  towards  the  established 
church  than  that  church  towards  them.  "  Advise  the  clergy," 
say  the  instructions  to  the  nuncio  in  1639,  "to  desist  from 
that  foolish,  nay  rather  illiterate  and  childish,  custom  of  dis 
tinction  in  the  protestant  and  puritan  doctrine  ;  and  especial 
ly  this  error  is  so  much  the  greater,  when  they  undertake  to 
prove  that  protestantism  is  a  degree  nearer  to  the  catholic 
faith  than  the  other.  For  since  both  of  them  be  without  the 
verge  of  the  church,  it  is  needless  hypocrisy  to  speak  of  it, 
yea,  it  begets  more  malice  than  it  is  worth."  l 

This  exceeding  boldness  of  the  catholic  party,  and  their 
success  in  conversions,  which  were,  in  fact,  less  remarkable 
for  their  number  than  for  the  condition  of  the  persons,  roused 
the  primate  himself  to  some  apprehension.  He  preferred  a 
formal  complaint  to  the  king  in  council  against  the  resort  of 
papists  to  the  queen's  chapel,  and  the  insolence  of  some  ac 
tive  zealots  about  the  court.'2  Henrietta,  who  had  courted 
his  friendship,  and  probably  relied  on  his  connivance,  if  not 

1  ''Begets  more  malice  "  is  obscure —  the  Roman  catholics  seems  to   be,  that, 
perhaps  it  means  ''  irritates  the  puritans  with  a  view  of  gaining  them  over  to  his 
niore.;'     Clar.  Papers,  ii.  44.  own  half-way  protestantism,  and  also  of 

2  Ileylin.   p.  338  ;  Laud's  Diary,  Oct.  ingratiating  himself  with  the  queen,  he 
1637  ;  Strafford  Letters,  i.  426.     Garrard,  had  for  a  time  gone  along  with  the  tide, 
a  dependent  friend  whom   Strafford  re-  till  he  found  there  was  a  real  danger  of 
tained,  as  was  usvial  with  great  men,  to  being  carried  farther  than  he  intended, 
communicate  the  news  of  the  court,  fre-  This  accounts  for  the  well-known  story 
quently  descants  on  the  excessive  bold-  told  by  Evelyn,  that  the  Jesuits  at  Home 
ness  of  the  pupists.     "  Laud,';  he  says,  spoke  of  him  as  their  bitterest  enemy. 
Tol.  ii.  p.  74.  "does  all  he  can  to  beat  He  is  reported    to  have  said   that   they 
down  the  general  fear  conceived  of  bring-  and  the  puritans  were  the  chief  obstacles 
ing  on  popery."     So  in  p   165  and  many  to  a  reunion  of  the  churches.      There  is 
other  places.  an  obscure  stor}r  of  a  plot  carried  on  by 

Ir  is  manifest,  by  a  letter  of  Laud  to  the  pope's  legate  Con  and  the  English 

Strafford  in  1638.  that  he  was  not  satis-  Jesuits   against    Laud,   and   detected   in 

fied  with  the   systematic  connivance  at  1640  by  one  Andrew  Haberntield,  which 

recusancy.    Id.  171.    The  explanation  of  some   have    treated    as    a    mere   fiction, 

the  archbishop's  conduct  with  respect  to  llushworth,  iii.  232. 


CHA.  I.  — 1629-40.        SIR  THOMAS   BROWNE.  77 

support,  seems  never  to  have  forgiven  this  unexpected  attack. 
Laud  gave  another  testimony  of  his  unabated  hostility  to 
popery  by  republishing  with  additions  his  celebrated  conference 
with  the  Jesuit  Fisher,  a  work  reckoned  the  great  monument 
of  his  learning  and  controversial  acumen.  This  conference 
had  taken  place  many  years  before,  at  the  desire  and  in  the 
presence  of  the  countess  of  Buckingham,  the  duke's  mother. 
Those  who  are  conversant  with  literary  and  ecclesiastical 
anecdote  must  be  aware,  that  nothing  was  more  usual  in  the 
seventeenth  century  than  such  single  combats  under  the  eye 
of  some  fair  lady,  whose  religious  faith  was  to  depend  upon 
the  victory.  The  wily  and  polished  Jesuits  had  great  advan 
tages  in  these  duels,  which  almost  always,  I  believe,  ended 
in  their  favor.  After  fatiguing  their  gentle  arbitress  for 
a  time  with  the  tedious  fencing  of  text  and  citation,  till  she 
felt  her  own  inability  to  award  the  palm,  they  came,  with 
her  prejudices  already  engaged,  to  the  necessity  of  an  infal 
lible  judge  ;  and  as  their  adversaries  of  the  English  church 
had  generally  left  themselves  vulnerable  on  this  side,  there 
was  little  difficulty  in  obtaining  success.  Like  Hector  in  the 
spoils  of  Patroclus,  our  clergy  had  assumed  to  themselves 
the  celestial  armor  of  authority ;  but  found  that,  however  it 
might  intimidate  the  multitude,  it  fitted  them  too  ill  to  repel 
the  spear  that  had  been  wrought  in  the  same  furnace.  A 
writer  of  this  school  in  the  age  of  Charles  I.,  and  incompa 
rably  superior  to  any  of  the  churchmen  belonging  to  it,  in  the 
brightness  and  originality  of  his  genius,  sir  Thomas  Browne, 
whose  varied  talents  wanted  nothing  but  the  controlling  su 
premacy  of  good  sense  to  place  him  in  the  highest  rank  of  our 
literature,  will  furnish  a  better  instance  of  the  prevailing  bias 
than  merely  theological  writings.  He  united  a  most  acute 
and  skeptical  understanding  with  strong  devotional  sensibility, 
the  temperament  so  conspicuous  in  Pascal  and  Johnson,  and 
which  has  a  peculiar  tendency  to  seek  the  repose  of  implicit 
faith.  "  Where  the  Scripture  is  silent,"  says  Browne  in  his 
Religio  Medici,  u  the  church  is  my  text ;  where  it  speaks,  'tis 
but  my  comment."  That  Jesuit  must  have  been  a  disgrace 
to  his  order,  who  would  have  asked  more  than  such  a 
concession  to  secure  a  proselyte  —  the  right  of  interpret 
ing  whatever  was  written  and  of  supplying  whatever  was 
not. 

At  this   time,  however,  appeared   one  man  in  the  field  of 
religious  debate,  who  struck  out  from  that  insidious  track,  of 


78  CHILLING  WORTH.  CHAP.  VIII. 

which  his  own  experience  had  shown  him  the  perils.  Chil- 
Chiiiing-  lingworth,  on  whom  nature  had  bestowed  some- 
worth,  thing  like  the  same  constitutional  temperament  as 
that  to  which  I  have  just  adverted,  except  that,  the  reasoning 
power  having  a  greater  mastery,  his  religious  sensibility  rather 
gave  earnestness  to  his  love  of  truth  than  tenacity  to  his  prej 
udices,  had  been  induced,  like  so  many  others,  to  pass  over 
to  the  Horn  an  church.  The  act  of  transition,  it  may  be  ob 
served,  from  a  system  of  tenets  wherein  men  had  been  edu 
cated,  was  in  itself  a  vigorous  exercise  of  free  speculation, 
and  might  be  termed  the  suicide  of  private  judgment.  But 
in  Chill  ing  worth's  restless  mind  there  was  an  inextinguish 
able  skepticism  that  no  opiates  could  subdue  ;  yet  a  skepti 
cism  of  that  species  which  belongs  to  a  vigorous,  not  that 
which  denotes  a  feeble,  understanding.  Dissatisfied  with 
his  new  opinions,  of  which  he  had  never  been  really  con 
vinced,  he  panted  to  breathe  the  freer  air  of  protestantism, 
and,  after  a  long  and  anxious  investigation,  returned  to  the 
English  church.  lie  well  redeemed  any  censure  that  might 
have  been  thrown  on  him,  by  his  great  work  in  answer  to 
the  Jesuit  Knott,  entitled  The  Religion  of  Protestants  a  Safe 
Way  to  Salvation.  In  the  course  of  his  reflections  he  had 
perceived  the  insecurity  of  resting  the  Reformation  on  any 
but  its  original  basis,  the  independency  of  private  opinion. 
This,  too,  he  asserted  with  a  fearlessness  and  consistency 
hitherto  little  known,  even  within  the  protestant  pale ;  com 
bining  it  with  another  principle,  which  the  zeal  of  the  early 
reformers  had  rendered  them  unable  to  perceive,  and  for 
want  of  which  the  adversary  had  perpetually  discomfited 
them,  namely,  that  the  errors  of  conscientious  men  do  not 
forfeit  the  favor  of  God.  This  endeavor  to  mitigate  the 
dread  of  forming  mistaken  judgments  in  religion  runs  through 
the  whole  work  of  Chillingworth,  and  marks  him  as  the  foun 
der,  in  this  country,  of  what  has  been  called  the  latitudina- 
rian  school  of  theology.  In  this  view,  which  has  practically 
been  the  most  important  one  of  the  controversy,  it  may  pass 
for  an  anticipated  reply  to  the  most  brilliant  performance  on 
the  opposite  side,  the  History  of  the  Variations  of  Protestant 
Churches ;  and  those  who  from  a  delight  in  the  display  of 
human  intellect,  or  from  more  serious  motives  of  inquiry,  are 
led  to  these  two  masterpieces,  will  have  seen,  perhaps,  the 
utmost  strength  that  either  party,  in  the  great  schism  of 
Christendom,  has  been  able  to  put  forth. 


CHA.  I. —  1029-40.  HALES.  79 

This  celebrated  work,  which  gained  its  author  the  epithet 
of  immortal,  is  now,  I  suspect,  little  studied  even  by  the 
clergy.  It  is  no  doubt,  somewhat  tedious,  when  read  con 
tinuously,  from  the  frequent  recurrence  of  the  same  strain  of 
reasoning,  and  from  his  method  of  following,  sentence  by  sen 
tence,  the  steps  of  his  opponent;  a  method  which,  while  it 
presents  an  immediate  advantage  to  controversial  writers,  as 
it  heightens  their  reputation  at  the  expense  of  their  adver 
sary,  is  apt  to  render  them  very  tiresome  to  posterity.  But 
the  closeness  and  precision  of  his  logic,  which  this  mode  of 
incessant  grappling  with  his  antagonist  served  to  display,  are 
so  admirable,  perhaps,  indeed,  hardly  rivalled  in  any  book 
beyond  the  limits  of  strict  science,  that  the  study  of  Chil- 
lingworth  might  tend  to  chastise  the  verbose  and  indefi 
nite  declamation  so  characteristic  of  the  present  ( day.  His 
style,  though  by  no  means  elegant  or  imaginative,  has  much 
of  a  nervous  energy  that  rises  into  eloquence.  He  is  chiefly, 
however,  valuable  for  a  true  liberality  and  tolerance ;  far  re 
moved  from  indifference,  as  may  well  be  thought  of  one 
whose  life  was  consumed  in  searching  for  truth,  but  diametri 
cally  adverse  to  those  pretensions  which  seem  of  late  years 
to  have  been  regaining  ground  among  the  Anglican  divines. 

The  latitudinarian  principles  of  Chillingworth  appear  to 
have  been  confirmed  by  his  intercourse  with  a  Tr  . 

»  JJUlies . 

man,  ot  whose  capacity  his  contemporaries  enter 
tained  so  high  an  admiration,  that  he  acquired  the  distinctive 
appellation  of  the  Ever-memorable  John  Hales.  This  tes 
timony  of  so  many  enlightened  men  is  not  to  be  disregarded, 
even  if  we  should  be  of  opinion  that  the  writings  of  Hales, 
though  abounding  with  marks  of  an  unshackled  mind,  do  not 
quite  come  up  to  the  promise  of  his  name.  He  had,  as  well 
as  Chillingworth,  borrowed  from  Leyden,  perhaps  a  little 
from  Racow,  a  tone  of  thinking  upon  some  doctrinal  points, 
as  yet  nearly  unknown,  and  therefore  highly  obnoxious,  in 
England.  More  hardy  than  his  friend,  he  wrote  a  short 
treatise  on  schism,  which  tended,  in  pretty  blunt  and  unlim 
ited  language,  to  overthrow  the  scheme  of  authoritative 
decisions  in  any  church,  pointing  at  the  imposition  of  unne 
cessary  ceremonies  and  articles  of  faith  as  at  once  the  cause 
and  the  apology  of  separation.  This,  having  been  circulated 
in  manuscript,  came  to  the  knowledge  of  Laud  who  sent  for 
Hales  to  Lambeth,  and  questioned  him  as  to  his  opinions  on 


80  TREATISE  OX  SCHISM.  CHAP.  VIII. 

that  matter.  Hales,  though  willing  to  promise  that  he  would 
not  publish  the  tract,  receded  not  a  jot  from  his  free  notions 
of  ecclesiastical  power  ;  which  he  again  advisedly  maintained 
in  a  letter  to  the  archbishop,  now  printed  among  his  works. 
The  result  was  equally  honorable  to  both  parties  ;  Laud  be 
stowing  a  canonry  of  Windsor  on  Hales,  which,  after  so  bold 
an  avowal  of  his  opinion,  he  might  accept  without  the  slight 
est  reproach.  A  behavior  so  liberal  forms  a  singular  con 
trast  to  the  rest  of  this  prelate's  history.  It  is  a  proof,  no 
doubt,  that  he  knew  how  to  set  such  a  value  on  great  abilities 
and  learning,  as  to  forgive  much  that  wounded  his  pride. 
But  besides  that  Hales  had  not  made  public  this  treatise  on 
schism,  for  which  I  think  he  could  not  have  escaped  the  high- 
commission  court,  he  was  known  by  Laud  to  stand  far  aloof 
from  the  Calvinistic  sectaries,  having  long  since  embraced  in 
their  full  extent  the  principles  of  Episcopius,  and  to  mix  no 
alloy  of  political  faction  with  the  philosophical  hardiness  of 
his  speculations.1 

These  two  remarkable  ornaments  of  the  English  church, 
who  dwelt  apart  like  stars,  to  use  the  fine  expression  of  a 
living  poet,  from  the  vulgar  bigots  of  both  her  factions,  were 
accustomed  to  meet,  in  the  society  of  some  other  eminent 
persons,  at  the  house  of  lord  Falkland,  near  Burford.  One 
of  those,  who,  then  in  a  ripe  and  learned  youth,  became 
afterwards  so  conspicuous  a  name  in  our  annals  and  our  lit 
erature,  Mr.  Hyde,  the  chosen  bosom-friend  of  his  host,  has 
dwelt  with  affectionate  remembrance  on  the  conversations  of 
that  mansion.  His  marvellous  talent  of  delineating  character 
—  a  talent,  I  think,  unrivalled  by  any  writer  (since,  combin 
ing  the  bold  outline  of  the  ancient  historians  with  the  ana 
lytical  minuteness  of  De  Retz  and  St.  Simon,  it  produces  a 
higher  etfect  than  either) — is  never  more  beautifully  dis 
played  than  in  that  part  of  the  memoirs  of  his  life  where 
Falkland,  Hales,  Chillingworth,  and  the  rest  of  his  early 
friends,  pass  over  the  scene. 

For  almost  thirty  ensuing  years  Hyde  himself  becomes 
the  companion  of  our  historical  reading.  Seven  folio  vol- 

1  Heylin,  in  his  Life  of  Laud,  p.  340,  as   his   treatise  on  schism,   proves   that 

tells  this  story  as  if  Hales  had  recanted  Heylin's  narrative  is   one  of  his    many 

his   opinions   and   owned    Laud's   supe-  wilful  falsehoods;    for,  by  making  him- 

riority  over  him  in  argument.      This  is  self  a  witness  to  the  pretended  circum- 

ludicrous.  considering  the  relative  abili-  stances,  he  has  precluded  the  excuse  of 

ties  of  the  two  men.     And  Hales's  letter  error, 
to  the  archbishop,  which  is  full  as  bold 


CHA.  I.  — 1629-40. 


CLAEEXDOX. 


81 


umes  contain  his  History  of  the  Rebellion,  his  Life,  and  the 
Letters,  of    which    a    large   portion  are  his  own. 
We  contract  an  intimacy  with  an  author  who  has  of  ciaren- 
poured  out  to  us  so   much  of  his  heart.     Though  ^»'s  writ- 
lord  Clarendon's  chief  work  seems  to  me  not  quite  m 
accurately  styled  a  history,  belonging  rather  to  the  class  of 
memoirs,1  yet  the  very  reasons  of  this  distinction,  the  long 
circumstantial  narrative  of  events  wherein  he  was  engaged, 
and  the  slight  notice  of  those  which  he  only  learned  from 
others,   render   it    more  interesting,   if  not   more   authentic. 
Conformably  to  human  feelings,  though  against  the  rules  of 
historical  composition,  it  bears  the  continual  impress  of  an 
intense  concern  about  what  he  relates.     This  depth  of  per 
sonal  interest  united  frequently   with   an    eloquence   of  the 
heart  and  imagination   that    struggles  through   an  involved, 
incorrect,  and  artificial  diction,  makes  it,  one  would  imagine, 
hardly  possible  for  those  most  alien  from  his  sentiments  to 


i  It  appears  by  the  late  edition  at  Ox 
ford  (1826)  that  lord  Clarendon  twice 
altered  his  intention  as  to  the  nature  of 
Ills  work,  having  originally  designed  to 
write  the  history  of  his  time,  which  he 
changed  to  memorials  of  his  own  life, 
and  again  returned  to  his  first  plan. 
The  consequence  has  been  that  there 
are  two  manuscripts  of  the  History  and 
of  the  Life,  which,  in  a  great  degree,  are 
transcripts  one  from  the  other,  or  con 
tain  the  same  general  fact  with  varia 
tions.  That  part  of  the  Life,  previous  to 
1660.  which  is  not  inserted  in  the  History 
of  the  Kebellion,  is  by  no  means  exten 
sive. 

The  genuine  text  of  the  History  has 
only  been  published  in  1826.  A  story, 
as  is  well  known,  obtained  circulation 
within  thirty  years  after  its  first  appear 
ance,  that  the  manuscript  had  been  ma 
terially  altered  or  interpolated.  This 
was  positively  denied,  and  supposed  to 
be  wholly  disproved.  It  turns  out  how 
ever  that,  like  many  other  anecdotes,  it 
had  a  considerable  basis  of  truth,  though 
with  various  erroneous  additions,  and 
probably  wilful  misrepresentations.  It  is 
nevertheless  surprising  that  the  worthy 
editor  of  the  original  manuscript  should 
say.  '•  that  the  genuineness  of  the  work 
has  rashly,  and  for  party  purposes,  been 
called  in  question."  when  no  one,  I  be 
lieve,  has  ever  disputed  its  genuineness  ; 
and  the  anecdote  to  which  I  have  alluded, 
and  to  which,  no  doubt,  he  alludes,  has 
been  by  his  own  industry  (and  many 
thanks  we  owe  him  for  it)  perfectly  con 
firmed  in  substance.  For  though  he  en- 
VOL.  II.  G 


deavors,  not  quite  necessarily,  to  excuse 
or  justify  the  original  editors  (who  seem 
to  have  been  Sprat  and  Aldrich,  with  the 
sanction  probably  of  lords  Clarendon  and 
Rochester,  the  historian's  sons)  for  what 
they  did,  and  even  singularly  asserts 
that  "  the  present  collation  satisfactorily 
proves  that  they  have  in  no  one  instance 
added,  suppressed,  or  altered  any  histori 
cal  fact"  (Adver.  to  edit.  1826,  p.  v.),  yet 
it  is  certain  that,  besides  the  perpetual 
impertinence  of  mending  the  style,  there 
are  several  hundred  variations  which 
affect  the  sense,  introduced  from  one  mo 
tive  or  another,  and  directly  contrary  to 
the  laws  of  literary  integrity.  The  long 
passages  inserted  in  the  appendixes  to 
several  volumes  of  this  edition  contain 
surely  historical  facts  that  had  been  sup 
pressed.  And.  even  with  respect  to  sub 
ordinate  alterations,  made  for  the  purpose 
of  softening  traits  of  the  author's  angry 
temper,  or  correcting  his  mistakes,  the 
general  effect  of  taking  such  liberties 
with  a  work  is  to  give  it  an  undue  credit 
in  the  eyes  of  the  public,  and  to  induce 
men  to  believe  matters  upon  the  writer's 
testimony,  which  they  would  not  have 
done  so  readily  if  his  errors  had  been 
fairly  laid  before  them.  Clarendon  in 
deed  is  so  strangely  loose  in  expression 
as  well  as  incorrect  in  statement,  that  it 
would  have  been  impossible  to  remove 
his  faults  of  this  kind  without  writing 
again  half  the  History  ;  but  it  is  certain 
that  great  trouble  was  very  unduly  tak 
en  to  lighten  their  impression  upon  the 
world. 


82          ANIMADVERSIONS   ON  HIS   FIRST  BOOK.     CHAP.  VIII. 

read  his  writings  without  some  portion  of  sympathy.  But 
they  are  on  this  account  not  a  little  dangerous  to  the  sound 
ness  of  our  historical  conclusions  ;  the  prejudices  of  Clar 
endon,  and  his  negligence  as  to  truth,  being  full  as  striking 
as  his  excellencies,  and  leading  him  not  only  into  many  er 
roneous  judgments,  but  into  frequent  inconsistencies. 

These  inconsistencies  are  nowhere  so  apparent  as  in  the 
first  or  introductory  book  of  his  History,  which  professes  to 
give  a  general  view  of  the  state  of  affairs  before  the  meeting 
of  the  long  parliament.  It  is  certainly  the  most 
^onTonVer"  defective  part  of  his  work.  A  strange  mixture 
Clarendon's  of  honesty  and  disingenuousness  pervades  all  he 
Ss  period.  nas  written  of  the  early  years  of  the  king's  reign ; 
retracting,  at  least  in  spirit,  in  almost  every  page 
what  has  been  said  in  the  last,  from  a  constant  fear  that  he 
may  have  admitted  so  much  against  the  government  as  to 
make  his  readers  impute  too  little  blame  to  those  who  op 
posed  it.  Thus,  after  freely  censuring  the  exactions  of  the 
crown,  whether  on  the  score  of  obsolete  prerogative  or  with 
out  any  just  pretext  at  all,  especially  that  of  ship-money, 
and  confessing  that  "  those  foundations  of  right,  by  which 
men  valued  their  security,  were  never,  to  the  apprehension 
and  understanding  of  wise  men,  in  more  danger  of  being 
destroyed,"  he  turns  to  dwell  on  the  prosperous  state  of  the 
kingdom  during  this  period,  "  enjoying  the  greatest  calm  and 
the  fullest  measure  of  felicity  that  any  people  in  any  age  for 
so  long  time  together  have  been  blessed  with,"  till  he  works 
himself  up  to  a  strange  paradox,  that  "many  wise  men 
thought  it  a  time  wherein  those  two  adjuncts,  which  Nerva 
was  deified  for  uniting,  Imperium  et  Libertas,  were  as  well 
reconciled  as  is  possible." 

Such  wisdom  was  not,  it  seems,  the  attribute  of  the  nation. 
"  These  blessings,"  he  says,  "  could  but  enable,  not  compel, 
us  to  be  happy  ;  we  wanted  that  sense,  acknowledgment,  and 
value  of  our  own  happiness  which  all  but  we  had,  and  took 
pains  to  make,  when  we  could  not  find,  ourselves  miserable. 
There  was,  in  truth,  a  strange  absence  of  understanding  in 
most,  and  a  strange  perverseness  of  understanding  in  the 
rest  ;  the  court  full  of  excess,  idleness,  and  luxury ;  the  coun 
try  full  of  pride,  mutiny,  and  discontent ;  every  man  more 
troubled  and  perplexed  at  that  they  called  the  violation  of 
the  law  than  delighted  or  pleased  with  the  observation  of  all 


CIIA.  I.  — 16-29-40. 


INCONSISTENCIES. 


83 


the  rest  of  the  charter ;  never  imputing  the  increase  of  their 
receipts,  revenue,  and  plenty  to  the  wisdom,  virtue,  and 
merit  of  the  crown,  but  objecting  every  small  imposition  to 
the  exorbitancy  and  tyranny  of  the  government." 

This  strange  passage  is  as  inconsistent  with  other  parts  of 
the  same  chapter,  and  with  Hyde's  own  conduct  at  the  be 
ginning  of  the  parliament,  as  it  is  with  all  reasonable  notions 
of  government.1  For  if  kings  and  ministers  may  plead  in 
excuse  for  violating  one  law  that  they  have  not  transgressed 
the  rest  (though  it  would  be  difficult  to  name  any  violation 
of  law  that  Charles  had  not  committed)  ;  if  this  were  enough 
to  reconcile  their  subjects,  and  to  make  dissatisfaction  pass  for 
a  want  of  perversion  of  understanding,  they  must  be  in  a 
very  different  predicament  from  all  others  who  live  within 
the  pale  of  civil  society,  whose  obligation  to  obey  its  dis 
cipline  is  held  to  be  entire  and  universal.  By  this  great 
writer's  own  admissions,  the  decision  in  the  case  of  ship- 
money  had  shaken  every  man's  security  for  the  enjoyment 
of  his  private  inheritance.  Though  as  yet  not  weighty 
enough  to  be  actually  very  oppressive,  it  might,  and,  ac- 


l  May  thus  answers,  by  a  sort  of  pro 
phetic  anticipation,  this  passage  of  Clar 
endon : —  "Another  sort  of  men.''  he 
says,  "and  especially  lords  and  gentle 
men,  by  whom  the  pressures  of  the 
government  were  not  much  felt,  who  en 
joyed  their  own  plentiful  fortunes,  with 
little  or  insensible  detriment,  looking  no 
farther  than  their  present  safety  and 
prosperity,  and  the  yet  undisturbed 
peace  of  the  nation,  whilst  other  king 
doms  were  embroiled  in  calamities,  and 
Germany  sadly  wasted  by  a  sharp  war, 
did  nothing  but  applaud  the  happiness 
of  England,  and  called  those  ungrateful 
factious  spirits  who  complained  of  the 
breach  of  laws  and  liberties;  that  the 
kingdom  abounded  with  wealth,  plenty, 
and  all  kinds  of  elegancies,  more  than 
ever ;  that  it  was  for  the  honor  of  a 
people  that  the  monarch  should  live 
splendidly,  and  not  be  curbed  at  all  in 
his  prerogative,  which  would  bring  him 
into  greater  esteem  with  other  princes, 
and  more  enable  him  to  prevail  in  trea 
ties  ;  that  what  they  suffered  by  monop 
olies  was  insensible,  and  not  grievous, 
if  compared  with  other  states  ;  that  the 
duke  of  Tuscany  sat  heavier  upon  his 
people  in  that  very  kind  ;  that  the  French 
king  had  made  himself  an  absolute  lord, 
and  quite  depressed  the  power  of  parlia 
ments,  which  had  been  there  as  great  as 


in  any  kingdom,  and  yet  that  France 
flourished,  and  the  gentry  lived  well ; 
that  the  Austrian  princes,  especially  in 
Spain,  laid  heavy  burdens  upon  their 
subjects.  Thus  did  many  of  the  English 
gentry,  by  way  of  comparison,  in  ordi 
nary  discourse,  plead  for  their  own  servi 
tude. 

"The  courtiers  would  begin  to  dispute 
against  parliaments,  in  their  ordinary 
discourse,  that  they  were  cruel  to  those 
whom  the  king  favored,  and  too  injurious 
to  his  prerogative ;  that  the  late  parlia 
ment  stood  upon  too  high  terms  with  the 
king,  and  that  they  hoped  the  king 
should  never  need  any  more  parliaments. 
Some  of  the  greatest  statesmen  and  privy- 
councillors  would  ordinarily  laugh  at  the 
ancient  language  of  England  when  the 
word  liberty  of  the  subject  was  named. 
But  these  gentlemen,  who  seemed  so  for 
ward  in  taking  up  their  own  yoke,  were 
but  a  small  part  of  the  nation  (though  a 
number  considerable  enough  to  make  a 
reformation  hard)  compared  with  those 
gentlemen  who  were  sensible  of  their 
birthrights  and  the  true  interests  of  the 
kingdom;  on  which  side  the  common 
people  in  the  generality  and  the  country 
freeholders  stood,  who  would  rationally 
argue  of  their  own  rights,  and  those  op 
pressions  that  were  laid  upon  them." 
Hist,  of  Parliament,  p.  12  (edit.  1812). 


84  PROSPERITY   OF  ENGLAND.  CHAP.  VIII. 

cording  to  the   experience  of  Europe,  undoubtedly  would, 
become  such  by  length  of  time  and  peaceable  submission. 

We  may  acknowledge  without  hesitation  that  the  kingdom 
had  grown  during  this  period  into  remarkable  prosperity  and 
affluence.  The  rents  of  land  were  very  considerably  in 
creased,  and  large  tracts  reduced  into  cultivation.  The  man 
ufacturing  towns,  the  seaports,  became  more  populous  and 
flourishing.  The  metropolis  increased  in  size  with  a  rapid 
ity  that  repeated  proclamations  against  new  buildings  could 
not  restrain.  The  country-houses  of  the  superior  gentry 
throughout  England  were  built  on  a  scale  which  their  de 
scendants,  even  in  days  of  more  redundant  affluence,  have 
seldom  ventured  to  emulate.  The  kingdom  was  indebted  for 
this  prosperity  to  the  spirit  and  industry  of  the  people,  to 
the  laws  which  secure  the  commons  from  oppression,  and 
which,  as  between  man  and  man,  were  still  fairly  adminis 
tered  ;  to  the  opening  of  fresh  channels  of  trade  in  the  east 
ern  and  western  worlds  (rivulets,  indeed,  as  they  seem  to  us 
who  float  in  the  full  tide  of  modern  commerce,  yet  at  that 
time  no  slight  contributions  to  the  stream  of  public  wealth)  ; 
but,  above  all,  to  the  long  tranquillity  of  the  kingdom,  igno 
rant  of  the  sufferings  of  domestic,  and  seldom  much  affected 
by  the  privations  of  foreign,  war.  It  was  the  natural  course 
of  things  that  wealth  should  be  progressive  in  such  a  land. 
Extreme  tyranny,  such  as  that  of  Spain  in  the  Netherlands, 
might,  no  doubt,  have  turned  back  the  current.  A  less  vio 
lent  but  long-continued  despotism,  such  as  has  existed  in 
several  European  monarchies,  would,  by  the  corruption  and 
incapacity  which  absolute  governments  engender,  have  re 
tarded  its  advance.  The  administration  of  Charles  was 
certainly  not  of  the  former  description.  Yet  it  would  have 
been  an  excess  of  loyal  stupidity  in  the  nation  to  have 
attributed  their  riches  to  the  wisdom  or  virtue  of  the  court, 
which  had  injured  the  freedom  of  trade  by  monopolies  and 
arbitrary  proclamations,  and  driven  away  industrious  manu 
facturers  by  persecution. 

If  we  were  to  draw  our  knowledge  from  no  other  book 
than  lord  Clarendon's  History  it  would  still  be  impossible  to 
avoid  the  inference  that  misconduct  on  the  part  of  the  crown, 
and  more  especially  of  the  church,  was  the  chief,  if  not  the 
sole,  cause  of  these  prevailing  discontents.  At  the  time 
when  Laud  unhappily  became  archbishop  of  Canterbury, 


CHA.  I.  — 1629-40.     CAUSE  OF  PREVAILING  DISCONTENTS.     85 

"  the  general  temper  and  humor  of  the  kingdom,"  he  tells 
us,  "  was  little  inclined  to  the  papist,  and  less  to  the  puritan. 
There  were  some  late  taxes  and  impositions  introduced, 
which  rather  angered  than  grieved  the  people,  who  wrere 
more  than  repaid  by  the  quiet  peace  and  prosperity  they 
enjoyed  ;  and  the  murmur  and  discontent  that  was,  appeared 
to  be  against  the  excess  of  power  exercised  by  the  crown, 
and  supported  by  the  judges  in  Westminster  Hall.  The 
church  was  not  repined  at,  nor  the  least  inclination  to  alter 
the  government  and  discipline  thereof,  or  to  change  the  doc 
trine.  Nor  was  there  at  that  time  any  considerable  number 
of  persons  of  any  valuable  condition  throughout  the  kingdom 
who  did  wish  either  ;  and  the  cause  of  so  prodigious  a  change 
in  so  few  years  after  was  too  visible  from  the  effects."  This 
cause,  he  is  compelled  to  admit,  in  a  passage  too  diffuse  to 
be  extracted,  was  the  passionate  and  imprudent  behavior  of 
the  primate.  Can  there  be  a  stronger  proof  of  the  personal 
prepossessions  which  forever  distort  the  judgment  of  this 
author  than  that  he  should  blame  the  remissness  of  Abbot, 
who  left  things  in  so  happy  a  condition,  and  assert  that  Laud 
executed  the  trust  of  solely  managing  ecclesiastical  affairs 
"infinitely  to  the  service  and  benefit"  of  that  church  which 
he  brought  to  destruction  ?  Were  it  altogether  true,  what  is 
doubtless  much  exaggerated,  that  in  IGoB  very  little  discon 
tent  at  the  measures  of  the  court  had  begun  to  prevail,  it 
would  be  utterly  inconsistent  with  experience  and  observa 
tion  of  mankind  to  ascribe  the  almost  universal  murmurs  of 
1G39  to  any  other  cause  than  bad  government.  But  Hyde, 
attached  to  Laud  and  devoted  to  the  king,  shrunk  from  the 
conclusion  that  his  own  language  would  afford  ;  and  his  piety 
made  him  seek  in  some  mysterious  influences  of  Heaven,  and 
in  a  judicial  infatuation  of  the  people,  for  the  causes  of  those 
troubles  which  the  fixed  and  uniform  dispensations  of  Provi 
dence  were  sufficient  to  explain.1 

1  It  is  curious  to  contrast  the  incon-  case,  which  he  vindicates  in  his  History, 

sistent  and  feeble  apologies  for  the  pre-  Soiners'  Tracts,  iv.  302.    Indeed  the  whole 

rogative  we  read  in  Clarendon's  History  speech  is  irreconcilable  with  the  picture 

with  his  speech  before  the  lords,  on  im-  he  afterwards  drew  of  the  prosperity  of 

peaching  the  judges  for  their  decision  in  England,  and  of  the  unreasonableness  of 

the  case  of  ship-money.  In  this  he  speaks  discontent. 

very  strongly  as  to  the  illegality  of  the  The  fact  is,  that  when  he  sat  down  in 

proceedings  of  the  judges  in  Rolls  and  Jersey   to   begin    his   History,   irritated, 

Vassal's  cases,  though  in  his  History  he  disappointed,   afflicted   at   all   that    had 

endeavors  to  insinuate  that  the  king  had  passed  in  the  last  five  years,  he  could  not 

a  right  to  tonnage  and  poundage  ;   he  in-  bring  his  mind  back  to  the  state  in  which 

veighs  also  against  the  decision  in  Bates's  it  had  been  at  the  meeting  of  the  long 


8G  DISTRESS   OF   THE  GOVERNMENT.      CHAP.  VIII. 

It  is  difficult  to  pronounce  how  much  longer  the  nation's 
Scots  troub-  signal  forbearance  would  have  held  out,  if  the 
dTstreSfof  Scots  had  not  precipitated  themselves  into  rebel- 
th'e  govern-  lion.  There  was  still  a  confident  hope  that  parlia 
ment  must  soon  or  late  be  assembled,  and  it  seemed 
equally  impolitic  and  unconstitutional  to  seek  redress  by  any 
violent  means.  The  patriots,  too,  had  just  cause  to  lament 
the  ambition  of  some  whom  the  court's  favor  subdued,  and 
the  levity  of  many  more  whom  its  vanities  allured.  But  the 
unexpected  success  of  the  tumultuous  rising  at  Edinburgh 
against  the  service-book  revealed  the  impotence  of  the  Eng 
lish  government.  Destitute  of  money,  and  neither  daring  to 
ask  it  from  a  parliament,  nor  to  extort  it  by  any  fresh  demand 
from  the  people,  they  hesitated  whether  to  employ  force  or 
to  submit  to  the  insurgents.  In  the  exchequer,  as  lord 
Northumberland  wrote  to  Strafford,  there  was  but  the  sum 
of  200/. ;  with  all  the  means  that  could  be  devised,  not  above 
110,000/.  could  be  raised;  the  magazines  were  all  unfur 
nished,  and  the  people  were  so  discontented  by  reason  of  the 
multitude  of  projects  daily  imposed  upon  them,  that  he  saw 
reason  to  fear  a  great  part  of  them  would  be  readier  to  join 
with  the  Scots  than  to  draw  their  swords  in  the  king's  ser 
vice.1  "  The  discontents  at  home,"  he  observes  some  months 
afterwards,  "  do  rather  increase  than  lessen,  there  being  no 
course  taken  to  give  any  kind  of  satisfaction.  The  king's 
coffers  were  never  emptier  than  at  this  time  ;  and  to  us  that 
have  the  honor  to  be  near  about  him  no  way  is  yet  known 
how  he  will  find  means  either  to  maintain  or  begin  a  war 
without  the  help  of  his  people."  2  Strafford  himself  dissuaded 
a  war  in  such  circumstances,  though  hardly  knowing  what 

parliament ;  and  believed  himself  to  have  people  to  submit  to  the  fury  of  this  par- 
partaken  far  less  in  the  sense  of  abuses  liament),  as  an  offence  and  scandal  to 
and  desire  of  redress  than  he  had  really  religion,  in  the  same  degree  that  ship- 
done.  There  may.  however,  be  reason  money  was  to  liberty  and  property." 
to  suspect  that  he  had,  in  some  respects,  State  Papers,  ii.  336.  But  when  we  turn 
gone  farther  in  the  first  draught  of  his  to  the  passage  in  the  History  of  the  Re- 
History  than  appears  at  present ;  that  is,  bellion,  p.  268,  where  this  is  mentioned, 
I  conceive,  that  he  erased  himself  some  we  do  not  find  a  single  expression  reflect- 
passages  or  phrases  unfavorable  to  the  ing  on  the  court,  though  the  catholics 
court.  Let  the  reader  judge  from  the  themselves  are  censured  for  imprudence, 
following  sentence  in  a  letter  to  Nicholas  This  may  serve  to  account  for  several  of 
relating  to  his  work,  dated  Feb..  12. 1647  :  Clarendon's  inconsistencies,  for  nothing 
—  "  I  will  offer  no  excuse  for  the  enter-  renders  an  author  so  inconsistent  with 
taining  of  Con.  who  came  after  Panzani,  himself  as  corrections  made  in  a  different 
and  was  succeeded  by  Rosetti ;  which  was  temper  of  mind  from  that  which  actuated 
a  business  of  so  much  folly,  or  worse,  him  in  the  first  composition, 
that  I  have  mentioned  it  in  my  prolesoui-  1  Strafford  Letters,  ii.  186. 
ena  (of  those  distempers  and  exorbi-  -  Id.  267. 
tancea  in  government  which  prepared  the 


CHA.  I.  —  1029-40.    CONTRIBUTIONS   BY   CATHOLICS.  87 

other  course  to  advise.1  He  had  now  awaked  from  the 
dreams  of  infatuated  arrogance  to  stand  appalled  at  the  per 
ils  of  his  sovereign  and  his  own.  In  the  letters  that  passed 
between  him  and  Laud  after  the  Scots  troubles  had  broken 
out  we  read  their  hardly-concealed  dismay,  and  glimpses  of 
"  the  two-handed  engine  at  the  door."  Yet  pride  forbade 
them  to  perceive  or  confess  the  real  causes  of  this  porten 
tous  state  of  affairs.  They  fondly  laid  the  miscarriage  of 
the  business  of  Scotland  on  failure  in  the  execution,  and  an 
"  over-great  desire  to  do  all  quietly."  2 

In  this  imminent  necessity  the  king  had  recourse  to  those 
who  had  least  cause  to  repine  at  his  administration.  The 
catholic  gentry,  at  the  powerful  interference  of  their  queen, 
made  large  contributions  towards  the  campaign  of  1G39. 
Many  of  them  volunteered  their  personal  service.  There 
was,  indeed,  a  further  project,  so  secret  that  it  is  not  men 
tioned,  I  believe,  till  very  lately,  by  any  historical  writer. 
This  was  to  procure  10,000  regular  troops  from  Flanders,  in 
exchange  for  so  many  recruits  to  be  levied  for  Spain  in  Eng 
land  and  Ireland.  These  troops  were  to  be  for  six  months 
in  the  king's  pay.  Colonel  Gage,  a  catholic  and  the  nego 
tiator  of  this  treaty,  hints  that  the  pope  would  probably  con 
tribute  money,  if  he  had  hopes  of  seeing  the  penal  laws 
repealed ;  and  observes  that  with  such  an  army  the  king 
might  both  subdue  the  Scots,  and  at  the  same  time  keep  his 
parliament  in  check,  so  as  to  make  them  come  to  his  condi 
tions.3  The  treaty,  however,  was  never  concluded.  Spain 
was  far  more  inclined  to  revenge  herself  for  the  bad  faith 
she  imputed  to  Charles  than  to  lend  him  any  assistance. 
Hence,  when,  in  the  next  year,  he  offered  to  declare  war 
against  Holland,  as  soon  as  he  should  have  subdued  the 
Scots,  for  a  loan  of  1,200,000  crowns,  the  Spanish  ambassa 
dor  haughtily  rejected  the  proposition.4 

1  Strafford  Letters,  ii.  191.  such  like."    Laud  answers  in  the  same 

2  Id.250.      ''It  was  ever  clear  in  my  strain:  —  "  Indeed,  my  lord,  the  business 
judgment."   says    Strafford,    -'that    the  of  Scotland,  I  can  be  bold  to  say  without 
business    of   Scotland,    so    well   laid,  so  vanity,  was  well    laid,  and   was  a  great 
pleasing  to  God  and  man.  had    it   been  service  to  the  crown  as  well  as  to  God 
effected,  was  miserably  lost  in   the  exe-  himself.     And  that  it  should  so  fatally 
cution  ;  yet  could  never  have  so  fatally  fail  in  the  execution  is  a  great  blow  as 
miscarried  if  there  had  not  been  a  fail-  well  to  the  power  as  honor  of  the  king," 
ure  likewise  in  this  direction,  occasioned  &c.    He  lays  the  blame  in  a  great  degree 
either    by  over-great    desires   to   do   all  on  lord  Traquair.     P.  264. 

quietly  without   noise,  by  the  state  of         3  Clarendon  State  Papers,  ii.  19. 
the  business  misrepresented,  by  oppor-        *  Id.  84,  and  Appendix,  xxvi. 
tunities  and  seasons  slipped,  or'by  some 


88  SHIP-MOXEY.  CHAP.  VIII. 

The  pacification,  as  it  was  termed,  of  Berwick,  in  the  sum 
mer  of  1639,  has  been  represented  by  several  historians  as  a 
measure  equally  ruinous  and  unaccountable.  That  it  was  so 
far  ruinous  as  it  formed  one  link  in  the  chain  that  dragged 
the  king  to  destruction,  is  most  evident ;  but  it  was  both  in 
evitable  and  easy  of  explanation.  The  treasury,  whatever 
Clarendon  and  Hume  may  have  said,  was  perfectly  bank 
rupt.1  The  citizens  of  London,  on  being  urged  by  the  coun 
cil  for  a  loan,  had  used  as  much  evasion  as  they  dared.2  The 
writs  for  ship-money  were  executed  with  greater  difficulty, 
several  sheriffs  willingly  acquiescing  in  the  excuses  made  by 
their  counties.3  Sir  Francis  Seymour,  brother  to  the  earl  of 
Hertford,  and  a  man,  like  his  brother,  of  very  moderate  prin 
ciples,  absolutely  refused  to  pay  it,  though  warned  by  the 
council  to  beware  how  he  disputed  its  legality.4  Many  of 
the  Yorkshire  gentry,  headed  by  sir  Marmaduke  Langdale, 
combined  to  refuse  its  payment.5  It  was  impossible  to  rely 
again  on  catholic  subscriptions,  which  the  court  of  Rome,  as 
I  have  mentioned  above,  instigated  perhaps  by  that  of  Ma 
drid,  had  already  tried  to  restrain.  The  Scots  were  enthusi 
astic,  nearly  unanimous,  and  entire  masters  of  their  country. 
The  English  nobility  in  general  detested  the  archbishop,  to 
whose  passion  they  ascribed  the  whole  mischief,  and  feared 
to  see  the  king  become  despotic  in  Scotland.  If  the  terms 
of  Charles's  treaty  with  his  revolted  subjects  were  unsatis 
factory  and  indefinite,  enormous  in  concession,  and  yet  afford- 

1  Hume  says  that  Charles  had  au  ac-  Lest  it  should  seem  extraordinary  that  I 
cumulated  treasure  of  200,OOW.  at    this  sometimes  contradict  lord  Clarendon  on 
time.     I  know  not  his  authority  for  the  the  authority  of  his    own  collection  of 
particular  sum  ;  but  Clarendon  pretends  papers,  it  may  be   necessary  to    apprise 
that  '"  the  revenue  had  been  so  well  im-  the  reader  that  none  of  these,  anterior 
proved,  and  so  wisely  managed,  that  there  to  the  civil  war,  had  come  in  his  posses- 
was  money  in  the  exchequer  proportion-  sion  till  he  had  written  this  part  of  his 
able  for  the  undertaking  any  noble  en-  History. 

terprise."     This  is,  at  the  best,  strangely  3  The  grand  jury  of  Northampton  pre- 

hyperbolical ;  but,  in  fact,  there  was  an  sented  ship-money  as  a  grievance.     But 

absolute  want  of  everything.  Ship-money  the    privy -council  wrote    to    the  sheriff 

would  have  been  a  still  more  crying  sin  that  they  would  not  admit  his  affected 

than  it  was,  if  the  produce  had  gone  be-  excuses  ;  and  if  he  neglected  to  execute 

yond  the  demands  of  the  state  :  nor  was  the  writ,  a  quick  and  exemplary  repara- 

this  ever  imputed  to  the  court.     This  is  tion  would  be  required  of  him.     llushw. 

one  of  lord  Clarendon's  capital  mistakes  ;  Abr.  iii.  93. 

for  it  leads  him  to  speak  of  the  treaty  of  *  Rushw.  Abr.  iii.  47.  The  king  writes 
Berwick  as  a  measure  that  might  have  in  the  margin  of  Windebank's  letter,  in- 
been  avoided,  and  even,  in  one  place,  to  forming  him  of  Seymour's  refusal,  — 
ascribe  it  to  the  king's  excessive  lenity  "  You  must  needs  make  him  an  example, 
and  aversion  to  shedding  blood  ;  wherein  not  only  by  distress,  but,  if  it  be  possible, 
a  herd  of  superficial  writers  have  followed  an  information  in  some  court,  as  Mr.  At- 
him.  toruey  shall  advise.5' 

2  Clarendon   State    Papers,  ii.   46,  54.  5  Stratford  Letters,  ii.  308. 


CHA.  I.  — 1629-40.      CONVOCATION   OF   PARLIAMENT.  89 

ing  a  pretext  for  new  encroachments,  this  is  no  more  than 
the  common  lot  of  the  weaker  side. 

There  was  one  possible,  though  not  under  all  the  circum 
stances  very  likely,  method  of  obtaining  the  sinews  of  war 
—  the  convocation  of  parliament.  This  many,  at  least,  of 
the  king's  advisers  appear  to  have  long  desired,  could  they 
but  have  vanquished  his  obstinate  reluctance.  This  is  an  im 
portant  observation  :  Charles,  and  he  perhaps  alone,  unless 
we  reckon  the  queen,  seems  to  have  taken  a  resolution  of 
superseding  absolutely  and  forever  the  legal  constitution  of 
England.  The  judges,  the  peers,  lord  Strafford,  nay,  if  we 
believe  his  dying  speech,  the  primate  himself,  retained  enough 
of  respect  for  the  ancient  laws  to  desire  that  parliaments 
should  be  summoned  whenever  they  might  be  expected  to 
second  the  views  of  the  monarch.  They  felt  that  the  new 
scheme  of  governing  by  proclamations  and  writs  of  ship- 
money  could  not  and  ought  not  to  be  permanent  in  England. 
The  king  reasoned  more  royally,  and  indeed  much  better. 
He  well  perceived  that  it  was  vain  to  hope  for  another  par 
liament  so  constituted  as  tho.^e  under  the  Tudors.  He  was 
ashamed  (and  that  pernicious  woman  at  his  side  would  not 
fail  to  encourage  the  sentiment)  that  his  brothers  of  France 
and  Spain  should  have  achieved  a  work  which  the  sovereign 
of  England,  though  called  an  absolute  king  by  his  courtiers, 
had  scarcely  begun.  All  mention,  therefore,  of  calling  par 
liament  grated  on  his  ear.  The  declaration  published  at  the 
dissolution  of  the  last,  that  he  should  account  it  presumption 
for  any  to  prescribe  a  time  to  him  for  calling  parliaments, 
was  meant  to  extend  even  to  his  own  counsellors.  He  rated 
severely  lord-keeper  Coventry  for  a  suggestion  of  this  kind.1 
He  came  with  much  reluctance  into  Wentworth's  proposal 
of  summoning  one  in  Ireland,  though  the  superior  control  of 
the  crown  over  parliaments  in  that  kingdom  was  pointed  out 
to  him.  u  The  king,"  says  Cottington,  "  at  the  end  of  1 G38, 
will  not  hear  of  a  parliament ;  and  he  is  told  by  a  committee 
of  learned  men  that  there  is  no  other  way."  2  This  repug- 

1  '•  The  king  hath  so  rattled  my  lord-  banished  ;  so  many  oppressions  had  been 
keeper,  that  he  is  now  the  most  pliable  set  on  foot,  so  many  illegal  actions  done, 
man   in   England,  and   all  thoughts  of  that  the  only  way  to  justify  the  mischiefs 
parliaments  are  quite  out  of  his  pate.''  already  done  was  to  do  that  one  greater; 
Cottiugton  to  Strafford,  29th  Oct.  1633,  to  take  away  the  means  which  were  or- 
vol.  i.  p.  141.  darned  to  redress  them,  the  lawful  gov- 

2  Vol.  ii.  p.  246.     "So  by  this  time,''  ernment   of   England   by    parliaments." 
says  a  powerful  writer,  •'  all  thoughts  of  May,  History  of  Parliament,  p.  11. 
ever  having  a  parliament  again  was  quite 


90  PARLIAMENT   OF  APRIL,  1640.  CHAP.  VIII. 

nance  to  meet  his  people,  and  his  inability  to  carry  on  the 
war  by  any  other  methods,  produced  the  ignominious  pacifi 
cation  at  Berwick.  But  as  the  Scots,  grown  bolder  by  suc 
cess,  had,  after  this  treaty,  almost  thrown  off  all  subjection, 
and  the  renewal  of  the  war,  or  loss  of  the  sovereignty  over 
that  kingdom,  appeared  necessary  alternatives,  overpowered 
by  the  concurrent  advice  of  his  council,  and  especially  of 
Strafford,  he  issued  writs  for  that  parliament  which  met  in 
April  1640.1  They  told  him  that,  making  trial  once  more 
of  the  ancient  and  ordinary  way,  he  would  leave  his  people 
without  excuse  if  that  should  fail ;  and  have  wherewithal  to 
justify  himself  to  God  and  the  world,  if  he  should  be  forced 
contrary  to  his  inclinations  to  use  extraordinary  means,  rather 
than  through  the  peevishness  of  some  factious  spirit  to  suffer 
his  state  and  government  to  be  lost.2 

It  has  been  universally  admitted  that  the  parliament  which 
Parliament,  met  on  tne  l^tk  °^  April,  1640,  was  as  favorably 
of  April.  disposed  towards  the  king's  service,'  and  as  little 
influenced  by  their  many  wrongs,  as  any  man  of 
ordinary  judgment  could  expect.3  But  though  cautiously 
abstaining  from  any  intemperance,  so  much  as  to  reprove  a 
member  for  calling  ship-money  an  abomination  (no  very  out- 


1  Sidney  Papers,   ii.   623.      Clarendon  much  in  the  men  as  in  the  times  :  the 
Papers,  ii.  81.  bad  administration  and   bad  success  of 

2  Id.  ibid.     The  attentive  reader  will  1640,  as  well  as  the  dissolution  of  the 
not  fail  to  observe  that  this  is  the  iden-  short  parliament,  having  greatly  aggra- 
tical  language  of  the  famous  advice  im-  vated  the  public  discontents. 

puted     to     Strafford,    though    used    on  The  court  had  never  augured  well  of 

another  occasion.  this   parliament.      "  The  elections,"   as 

3  May.     Clarendon.     The   latter  says,  lord  Northumberland  writes  to  lord  Lei- 
upon  the  dissolution  of  this  parliament,  cester  at    Paris  (Sidney  Papers,  ii.  641), 
—  '-It  could    never    be    hoped   that   so  "  that  are  generally  made  of  knights  and 
many  sober  and  dispassionate  men  would  burgesses  in  this  kingdom,  give  us  cause 
ever  meet  again  in  that  place,  or  fewer  to  fear  that  the  parliament  will  not  sit 
who  brought  ill   purposes  with  them."  long;  for  such  as  have  dependence  upon 
This,  like  so  many  other  passages  in  the  the  court  are  in  divers   places  refused, 
noble  historian,  is  calculated   rather  to  and  the  most  refractory  persons  chosen." 
mislead   the   reader.      All   the   principal  There  are  some  strange  things  said  by 
men  who  headed  the  popular  party  in  Clarendon  of  the  ignorance  of  the  com- 
the   long   parliament   were   members  of  mons  as  to  the  value  of  twelve  subsidies, 
this  ;  and  the  whole  body,  so  far  as  their  which  Hume,  who  loves  to  depreciate  the 
subsequent  conduct  shows,  was   not  at  knowledge    of    former   times,   implicitly 
all  constituted  of  different  elements  from  copies.     But  they  cannot  be  true  of  that 
the  rest;  for  I  find,  by  comparison  of  the  enlightened  body,  whatever  blunders  one 
list  of  this  parliament,  in  Nalson's  Col-  or  two  individuals  might  commit.     The 
lections,  with   that  of  the   long  parlia-  rate    at   which    every   man\s   estate  was 
ment,    in    the    Parliamentary    History,  assessed  to  a  subsidy  was  perfectly  noto- 
that  eighty,  at  most,  who  had  not  sat  in  rious ;   and  the  burden    of  twelve  sub- 
the  former,  took  the  covenant ;  and  that  sidies,  to  be  paid  in  three  years,  was  more 
seventy-three,  in  the  same  circumstances,  than  the  charge  of  ship-money  they  had 
eat  in  the  king's  convention  at  Oxford,  been  enduring. 

The    difference,    therefore,   was    not    so 


CHA.  I.  — 1629-40.    JUDGMENT  AGAINST  MR.  HAMPDEX.          91 

ragi.'ous  expression),  they  sufficiently  manifested  a  determi 
nation  not  to  leave  their  grievances  unredressed.  Petitions 
against  the  manifold  abuses  in  church  and  state  covered  their 
table  ;  Pym,  Rudyard,  Waller,  lord  Digby,  and  others  more 
conspicuous  afterwards,  excited  them  by  vigorous  speeches ; 
they  appointed  a  committee  to  confer  with  the  lords,  accord 
ing  to  some  precedents  of  the  last  reign,  on  a  long  list  of 
grievances,  divided  into  ecclesiastical  innovations,  infringe 
ments  of  the  propriety  of  goods,  and  breaches  of  the  privi 
lege  of  parliament.  They  voted  a  request  of  the  peers, 
who,  Clarendon  says,  were  more  entirely  at  the  king's  dis 
posal,  that  they  would  begin  with  the  business  of  supply,  and 
not  proceed  to  debate  on  grievances  till  afterwards,  to  be  a 
high  breach  of  privilege.1  There  is  not  the  smallest  reason 
to  doubt  that  they  would  have  insisted  on  redress  in  all  those 
particulars  with  at  least  as  much  zeal  as  any  former  parlia 
ment,  and  that  the  king,  after  obtaining  his  subsidies,  would 
have  put  an  end  to  their  remonstrances,  as  he  had  done  be 
fore.2  In  order  to  obtain  the  supply  he  demanded,  namely, 
twelve  subsidies,  to  be  paid  in  three  years,  which,  though 
unusual,  was  certainly  hot  beyond  his  exigencies,  he  of 
fered  to  release  his  claim  to  ship-money  in  any  manner  they 
should  point  out.  But  this  the  commons  indignantly  re 
pelled.  They  deemed  ship-money  the  great  crime  of  his 
administration,  and  the  judgment  against  Mr.  Hampden  the 
infamy  of  those  who  pronounced  it.  Till  that  judgment 
should  be  annulled,  and  those  judges  punished,  the  national 
liberties  must  be  as  precarious  as  ever.  Even  if  they  could 
hear  of  a  compromise  with  so  flagrant  a  breach  of  the  con 
stitution,  and  of  purchasing  their  undoubted  rights,  the  doc 
trine  asserted  in  Mr.  Ilainpden's  case  by  the  crown  lawyers, 
and  adopted  by  some  of  the  judges,  rendered  all  stipulations 
nugatory.  The  right  of  taxation  had  been  claimed  as  an  ab 
solute  prerogative  so  inherent  in  the  crown  that  no  act  of 
parliament  could  take  it  away.  All  former  statutes,  down  to 
the  Petition  of  Right,  had  been  prostrated  at  the  foot  of  the 
throne  ;  by  what  new  compact  were  the  present  parliament 
to  give  a  sanctity  more  inviolable  to  their  own  ? 3 

It  will  be  in  the  recollection  of  my  readers  that,  while  the 

1  Journals.    Parl.  Hist.    Nalson.  Clar-     "  parliaments   are  like  cats  :    they  grow 
endon.  curst  with  age." 

2  The  king  had  long  before   said  that        3  See  Mr.  Waller's  speech  on  Crawley'a 

impeachment.     Nalson.  ii.  358. 


92  THE  TWELVE   SUBSIDIES.  CHAP.  VIII. 

commons  were  deliberating  whether  to  promise  any  supply 
before  the  redress  of  grievances,  and  in  what  measure,  sir 
Henry  Vane,  the  secretary,  told  them  that  the  king  would 
accept  nothing  less  than  the  twelve  subsidies  he  had  required  ; 
in  consequence  of  which  the  parliament  was  dissolved  next 
day.  Clarendon,  followed  by  several  others,  has  imputed 
treachery  in  this  to  Vane,  and  told  us  that  the  king  regretted 
so  much  what  he  had  done,  that  he  wished,  had  it  been  prac 
ticable,  to  recall  the  parliament  after  its  dissolution.  This  is 
confirmed,  as  to  Vane,  by  the  queen  herself,  in  that  interest 
ing  narrative  which  she  communicated  to  madame  de  Motte- 
ville.1  Were  it  not  for  such  authorities,  seemingly  inde 
pendent  of  each  other,  yet  entirely  tallying,  I  should  have 
deemed  it  more  probable  that  Vane,  with  whom  the  solicitor- 
general  Herbert  had  concurred,  acted  solely  by  the  king's 
command.  Charles,  who  feared  and  hated  all  parliaments, 
had  not  acquiesced  in  the  scheme  of  calling  the  present  till 
there  was  no  other  alternative  ;  an  insufficient  supply  would 
have  left  him  in  a  more  difficult  situation  than  before  as  to 
the  use  of  those  extraordinary  means,  as  they  were  called, 
which  his  disposition  led  him  to  'prefer:  the  intention  to 
assail  parts  of  his  administration  more  dear  to  him  than  ship- 

i  Mem.  de  Motteville,  i.  238-278.     P.  ords  ;  and  he  admits  himself  that  they 

Orleans.  Rev.  de  1'Angleterre,  tome  iii..  were  resolute  against  granting  subsidies 

says  the  same  of  Vane  ;  but  his  testimony  as  a  consideration  for  the  abandonment 

may  resolve  itself  into  the  former.     It  is  of  that  grievance.     Besides.  Hyde  him- 

to  be  observed   that  ship-money,  which  self  not  only  inveighs  most  severely  in 

the  king  offered  to  relinquish,  brought  in  his  History  against  ship-money,  but  was 

200,000;!.  a  year,  and   that  the  proposed  himself  one  of  the  managers  of  the  iin- 

twelve  subsidies  would  have  amounted,  peachment   against  six  judges  for  their 

at  most,  to  840.000^.,  to  be  paid  in  three  conduct  in  regard  to  it;  and  his  speech 

years.      Is  it  surprising  that,  when  the  before  the  house  of  lords  on  that  occa- 

house  displayed  an  intention  not  to  grant  sion  is  extant.    Rushw.  Abr.  ii.  477.    But 

the  whole  of  this,  as  appears   by  Claren-  this  is  merely  one  instance  of  his  eternal 

don's  own  story,  the  king  and  his  advis-  inconsistency. 

ers  should  have  thought  it  better  to  break  "It  seems  that  the  lord-lieutenant  of 
off  altogether  ?  I  see  no  reason  for  im-  Ireland  wished  from  the  beginning  that 
puting  treachery  to  Vane,  even  if  he  did  matters  should  thus  be  driven  to  the 
not  act  merely  by  the  king's  direction,  utmost.  For  he  wished  the  king  to  insist 
Clarendon  says  he  and  Herbert  persuaded  on  a  grant  of  money  before  any  progress 
the  king  that  the  house  "would  pass  should  be  made  in  the  removal  of  the 
such  a  vote  against  ship-money  as  would  abuses  which  had  grown  up  —  a  proceed- 
blast  that  revenue  and  other  branches  of  ing  at  variance  with  that  of  the  preceding 
the  receipt ;  which  others  believed  they  parliament.  No  less  did  he  vote  for  the 
would  not  have  the  confidence  to  have  violent  measure  of  demanding  twelve 
attempted,  and  very  few  that  they  would  subsidies,  only  five  at  the  utmost  having 
have  had  the  credit  to  have  compassed."  been  previously  granted.  He  either  en- 
P.  245.  The  word  they  is  as  inaccurate  tertained  the  view  of  thus  gaining  con- 
as  is  commonly  the  case  with  this  writer's  sideration  with  the  king,  or  of  moving 
language.  But  does  he  mean  that  the  him  to  an  alliance  with  the  Spaniards, 
house  would  not  have  passed  a  vote  in  whose  confidence  he  is."  Montreuil's 
against  ship-money  ?  They  had  already  despatches,  in  Raumer,  ii.  308. 
entered  on  the  subject,  and  sent  for  rec- 


CHA.  I.  — 1629-40.      DISSOLUTION   OF  PARLIAMENT.  93 

money,  and  especially  the  ecclesiastical  novelties,  was  ap 
parent.  Nor  can  we  easily  give  him  credit  for  this  alleged 
regret  at  the  step  he  had  taken,  when  we  read  the  declaration 
he  put  forth,  charging  the  commons  with  entering  on  exam 
ination  of  his  government  in  an  insolent  and  audacious  man 
ner,  traducing  his  administration  of  justice,  rendering  odious 
his  officers  and  ministers  of  state,  and  introducing  a  way  of 
bargaining  and  contracting  with  the  king,  as  if  nothing  ought 
to  be  given  him  by  them  but  what  he  should  purchase,  either 
by  quitting  somewhat  of  his  royal  prerogative,  or  by  dimin 
ishing  and  lessening  his  revenue.1  The  unconstitutional 
practice  of  committing  to  prison  some  of  the  most  prominent 
members,  and  searching  their  houses  for  papers,  was  re 
newed.  And  having  broken  loose  again  from  the  restraints 
of  law,  the  king's  sanguine  temper  looked  to  such  a  triumph 
over  the  Scots  in  the  coining  campaign  as  no  prudent  man 
could  think  probable. 

This  dissolution  of  parliament  in  May,  1640,  appears  to 
have  been  a  very  fatal  crisis  for  the  king's  popularity.  Those 
who,  with  the  loyalty  natural  to  Englishmen,  had  willingly 
ascribed  his  previous  misgovernment  to  evil  counsels,  could 
not  any  longer  avoid  perceiving  his  mortal  antipathy  to  any 
parliament  that  should  not  be  as  subservient  as  the  cortes  of 
Castile.  The  necessity  of  some  great  change  became  the 
common  theme.  "  It  is  impossible,"  says  lord  Northumber 
land,  at  that  time  a  courtier,  "  that  things  can  long  continue 
in  the  condition  they  are  now  in  ;  so  general  a  defection  in 
this  kingdom  hath  not  been  known  in  the  memory  of  any  ! "  2 
Several  of  those  who  thought  most  deeply  on  public  affairs 
now  entered  into  a  private  communication  with  the  Scots  in 
surgents.  It  seems  probable,  from  the  well-known  story  of 
lord  Saville's  forged  letter,  that  there  had  been  very  little 
connection  of  this  kind  until  the  present  summer.3  And  we 
may  conjecture  that,  during  this  ominous  interval,  those  great 
projects  which  were  displayed  in  the  next  session  acquired 
consistence  and  ripeness  by  secret  discussions  in  the  houses 
of  the  earl  of  Bedford  and  lord  Say.  The  king  meanwhile 

1  Parl.  Hist.     Rushworth.     Nalson.  ticularly  by  the  earl  of  Manchester,   in 

2  June  4,  1640.     Sidney  Papers,  ii.  654.  his   unpublished  Memorials,  from  which 

3  A  late  writer  has  spoken  of  this  cele-  Nalson    has    made    extracts  ;     and    who 
brated  letter  as  resting  on  very  question-  could  neither  be  mistaken  nor  have  any 
able  authority,     Liugard,   x.   43.     It  is,  apparent  motive,  in  this   private  narra- 
however,  mentioned  as  a  known  fact  by  tive,  to  deceive.     Nalson,  ii.  427. 
several  contemporary  writers,  and  par- 


94  COUNCIL   OF  YORK.  CHAP.  VIII. 

experienced  aggravated  misfortune  and  ignominy  in  his  mili 
tary  operations.  Ship-money  indeed  was  enforced  with 
greater  rigor  than  before,  several  sheriffs  and  the  lord  mayor 
of  London  being  prosecuted  in  the  star-chamber  for  neglect 
ing  to  levy  it.  Some  citizens  were  imprisoned  for  refusing  a 
loan.  A  new  imposition  was  laid  on  the  counties,  under  the 
name  of  coat-and-conduct-money,  for  clothing  and  defraying 
the  travelling  charges  of  the  new  levies.1  A  state  of  actual 
invasion,  the  Scots  having  passed  the  Tweed,  might  excuse 
some  of  these  irregularities,  if  it  could  have  been  forgotten 
that  the  war  itself  was  produced  by  the  king's  impolicy,  arid 
if  the  nation  had  not  been  prone  to  see  friends  and  deliverers 
rather  than  enemies  in  the  Scottish  army.  They  were,  at 
the  best  indeed,  troublesome  and  expensive  guests  to  the 
northern  counties  which  they  occupied ;  but  the  cost  of  their 
visit  was  justly  laid  at  the  king's  door.  Various  arbitrary 
resources  having  been  suggested  in  the  council,  and  aban 
doned  as  inefficient  and  impracticable  —  such  as  the  seizing 
the  merchants'  bullion  in  the  Mint,  or  issuing  a  debased  coin 
—  the  unhappy  king  adopted  the  hopeless  scheme  of  conven- 
councii  of  i"g  a  great  council  of  all  the  peers  at  York,  as  the 
York.  only  alternative  of  a  parliament.2  It  was  foreseen 

that  this  assembly  would  only  advise  the  king  to  meet  his  peo 
ple  in  a  legal  way.  The  public  voice  could  no  longer  be  sup 
pressed.  The  citizens  of  London  presented  a  petition  to  the 
king,  complaining  of  grievances,  and  asking  for  a  parliament. 
This  was  speedily  followed  by  one  signed  by  twelve  peers  of 
Convocation  popular  character.3  The  lords  assembled  at  York 
of  the  long  almost  unanimously  concurred  in  the  same  advice, 
to  which  the  king,  after  some  hesitation,  gave  his 
assent.  They  had  more  difficulty  in  bringing  about  a  settle- 

1  Rymer,   xx.  432.      Rushworth,  Abr.  had  partly  forgotten,  partly  never  known, 
iii.  163,  &c.    Nalson,  i.  389,  &c.    Ramner,  the  state  of  England  before  the  opening 
ii.  318.  of  the  long  parliament.     In  fact,  the  dis- 

2  Lord  Clarendon  seems  not  to   have  affection,  or  at  least  discontent,  had  pro- 
well  understood  the  secret  of  this  great  ceeded  so  far  in  1640  that  no  human  skill 
council,   and  supposes  it  to  have  been  could  have  averted  a  great  part  of  the 
suggested  by  those  who  wished  for  a  par-  consequences.    But  Clarendon's  partiality 
liament ;  whereas  the  Hardwicke  Papers  to  the  king,  and  to  some  of  his  advisers, 
show  the  contrary  :    pp.    116    and    118.  leads  him  to  see  in  every  event  particular 
His  notions  about  the  facility   of  com-  causes,  or  an  overruling  destiny,  rather 
posing  the  public  discontent  are  strangely  than  the  sure  operation  of  impolicy  and 
mistaken.      "  Without  doubt,"  he  says,  misgovernment. 

"  that  fire  at  that  time,  which  did  shortly  a  These  were  Hertford,  Bedford,  Essex, 

after  burn   the  whole    kingdom,  might  Warwick,  Paget,  Wharton,   Say,  Brook, 

have  been  covered  under  a  bushel."    But  Kimbolton,    Saville,    Mulgrave,    Boliug- 

the  whole  of  this  introductory  book  of  broke.     Nalson,  436,  437. 
his  History  abounds  with  proofs  that  he 


CHA.  I.— 1629-40.    CONVOCATION  OF  LOXG  PARLIAMENT.     95 

ment  with  the  Scots  :  the  English  army,  disaffected  and  un 
disciplined,  had  already  made  an  inglorious  retreat;  and  even 
Stratford,  though  passionately  against  a  treaty,  did  not  venture 
to  advise  an  engagement.1  The  majority  of  the  peers,  how 
ever,  overruled  all  opposition  ;  and  in  the  alarming  posture  of 
his  affairs,  Charles  had  no  resource  but  the  dishonorable  paci 
fication  of  Ripon.2  Anticipating  the  desertion  of  some  who 
had  partaken  in  his  councils,  and  conscious  that  others  would 
more  stand  in  need  of  his  support  than  be  capable  of  af 
fording  any,  he  awaited  in  fearful  suspense  the  meeting  of 
parliament. 

1  This  appears  from  the  minutes  of  the  letters,  with  marginal  notes  by  the  king, 
council  (Ilardwicke  Papers),  and  contra-  In  one  of  these   he  says,    "The  mayor 
diets   the  common  opinion.     Lord  Con-  now,  with   the  city,  are  to  be  nattered, 
way's  disaster  at  Newburn  was  by  no  not   threatened/'      P.    123.     Wiiidebank 
means  surprising :    the  English   troops,  writes  to  him  in  another  (Oct.  16,  1640) 
who  had  been  lately  pressed  into  service,  that  the  clerk  of  the  lower  house  of  par- 
were    perfectly    mutinous  ;     some    regi-  liauient  had  conic  to  demand  the  journai- 
ments  had  risen  and  even  murdered  their  book    of   the    last    assembly    and    some 
officers  on  the  road.     Rymer,  414,  425.  petitions,  which,  by  the  king's  command, 

2  The  Hardwicke  State  Papers,  ii.  168,  he  (\Vindebauk)  had  taken  into  his  cus- 
&c.,  contain  much  interesting  informa-  tody,  and  requests  to  know  if  they  should 
tion  about  the  council  of  York.     See  also  be  given  up.     Charles  writes  on  the  mar- 
the  Clarendon  Collection  for  some  curious  gin  —  "  Ay,  by  all  means."    P.  132. 


9G  CHARACTER   OF  LONG  PARLIAMENT.         CHAP.  IX. 


CHAPTER    IX. 

FROM    THE    MEETING    OF    THE     LONG    PARLIAMENT    TO    THE 
BEGINNING    OF    THE    CIVIL    WAR. 

Character  of  Long  Parliament  —  Its  salutary  Measures  —  Triennial  Bill  —  Other 
beneficial  Laws  —  Observations  —  Impeachment  of  Strafford — Discussion  of  its 
Justice  —  Act  against  Dissolution  of  Parliament  without  its  Consent  —  Innova 
tions  meditated  in  the  Church  —  Schism  in  the  Constitutional  Party  —  Remon 
strance  of  November,  1641  —  Suspicions  of  the  King's  Sincerity  —  Question  of 
the  Militia — Historical  Sketch  of  Military  Force  in  England — Encroachments 
of  the  Parliament  —  Nineteen  Propositions — Discussion  of  the  respective  Claims 
of  the  two  Parties  to  Support  —  Faults  of  both. 

WE  are  now  arrived  at  that  momentous  period  in  our  his- 
Character  toiT  wni°n  no  Englishman  ever  regards  without 
of  the  long  interest,  and  few  without  prejudice ;  the  period 
parliament.  from  w  j^  the  facti6n§ "of  modem  times  trace  their 
divergence,  which,  after  the  lapse  of  almost  two  centuries, 
still  calls  forth  the  warm  emotions  of  party-spirit,  and  affords 
a  test  of  political  principles ;  at  that  famous  parliament,  the 
theme  of  so  much  eulogy  and  of  so  much  reproach ;  that 

j  synod  of  inflexible  patriots  with  some,  that  conclave  of  trai 
torous  rebels  with  others  ;  that  assembly,  we  may  more  truly 
say,  of  unequal  virtue  and  checkered  fame,  which,  after  hav- 

!  ing  acquired  a  higher  claim  to  our  gratitude,  and  effected 
more  for  our  liberties,  than  any  that  had  gone  before  or  that 

j  has  followed,  ended  by  subverting  the  constitution  it  had 
strengthened,  and  by  sinking  in  its  decrepitude,  and  amidst 

|  public  contempt,  beneath  a  usurper  it  had  blindly  elevated 
its  salutary  to  power.  It  seems  agreeable  to  our  plan,  first  to 
measures.  bring  together  those  admirable  provisions  by  which 
this  parliament  restored  and  consolidated  the  shattered  fab 
ric  of  our  constitution,  before  we  advert  to  its  measures  of 
more  equivocal  benefit,  or  its  fatal  errors  ;  an  arrangement 
not  very  remote  from  that  of  mere  chronology,  since  the  for 
mer  were  chiefly  completed  within  the  first  nine  months  of 
its  session,  before  the  king's  journey  to  Scotland  in  the  sum 
mer  of  1641. 


CHA.  I.  — 1640-42.  ITS  SALUTARY  MEASURES.  97 

It  must,  I  think,  be  admitted  by  every  one  who  concurs  in 
the  representation  given  in  this  work,  and  especially  in  the 
last  chapter,  of  the  practical  state  of  our  government,  that 
some  new  securities  of  a  more  powerful  efficacy  than  any 
which  the  existing  laws  held  forth  were  absolutely  indispen 
sable  for  the  preservation  of  English  liberties  and  privileges. 
These,  however  sacred  in  name,  however  venerable  by  pre 
scription,  had  been  so  repeatedly  transgressed,  that  to  obtain 
their  confirmation,  as  had  been  done  in  the  Petition  of  Right, 
and  that  as  the  price  of  large  subsidies,  would  but  expose  the 
commons  to  the  secret  derision  of  the  court.  The  king,  by 
levying  ship-money  in  contravention  of  his  assent  to  that 
petition,  and  by  other  marks  of  insincerity,  had  given  too 
just  cause  for  suspicion  that,  though  very  conscientious  in 
his  way,  he  had  a  fund  of  casuistry  at  command  that  would 
always  release  him  from  any  obligation  to  respect  the  laws. 
Again,  to  punish  delinquent  ministers  was  a  necessary  piece 
of  justice  ;  but  who  could  expect  that  any  such  retribution 
would  deter  ambitious  and  intrepid  men  from  the  splendid 
lures  of  power  ?  Whoever,  therefore,  came  to  the  parlia 
ment  of  November,  1640,  with  serious  and  steady  purposes 
for  the  public  weal,  and  most,  I  believe,  except  mere  cour 
tiers,  entertained  such  purposes  according  to  the  measure  of 
their  capacities  and  energies,  must  have  looked  to  some  es 
sential  change  in  the  balance  of  government,  some  important 
limitations  of  royal  authority,  as  the  primary  object  of  his 
attendance. 

Nothing  could  be  more  obvious  than  that  the  excesses  of 
the  late  unhappy  times  had  chiefly  originated  in  the  long  in 
termission  of  parliaments.  No  lawyer  would  have  dared  to 
suggest  ship-money  with  the  terrors  of  a  house  of  commons 
before  his  eyes.  But  the  king's  known  resolution  to  govern 
without  parliaments  gave  bad  men  more  confidence  of  im 
punity.  This  resolution  was  not  likely  to  be  shaken  by  the 
unpalatable  chastisement  of  his  servants  and  redress  of 
abuses,  on  which  the  present  parliament  was  about  to  enter. 
A  statute  as  old  as  the  reign  of  Edward  III.  had  already 
provided  that  parliaments  should  be  held  "  every  year,  or 
oftener  if  need  be."  l  But  this  enactment  had  in  no  age 


1  4  E.  3,  c.  14.      It  appears  by   the  holding  of   parliaments.      It    seems    to 

Journals,  30th  Dec.  1640,  that  the  trien-  have  been  altered  in  the  committee  ;  at 

nial   bill   was   originally  for   the    yearly  least  we  find  the  title  changed,  Jan.  19. 
VOL.  II.                                           7 


98  TRIENNIAL  BILL.  CHAP.  IX. 

been  respected.  It  was  certain  that,  in  the  present  temper  of 
the  administration,  a  law  simply  enacting  that  the  interval 
between  parliaments  should  never  exceed  three  years  would 
Triennial  prove  wholly  ineffectual.  In  the  famous  act  there 
fore  for  triennial  parliaments,  the  first  fruits  of 
the  commons'  laudable  zeal  for  reformation,  such  provisions 
were  introduced  as  grated  harshly  on  the  ears  of  those  who 
valued  the  royal  prerogative  above  the  liberties  of  the  sub 
ject,  but  without  which  the  act  itself  might  have  been  dis 
pensed  with.  Every  parliament  was  to  be  ipso  facto  dissolved 
at  the  expiration  of  three  years  from  the  first  day  of  its  ses 
sion,  unless  actually  sitting  at  the  time,  and  in  that  case  at  its 
first  adjournment  or  prorogation.  The  chancellor  or  keeper 
of  the  great  seal  was  to  be  sworn  to  issue  writs  for  a  new 
parliament  within  three  years  from  the  dissolution  of  the  last, 
under  pain  of  disability  to  hold  his  office,  and  further  pun 
ishment  :  in  case  of  his  failure  to  comply  with  this  provision, 
the  peers  were  enabled  and  enjoined  to  meet  at  Westminster, 
and  to  issue  writs  to  the  sheriffs  ;  the  sheriffs  themselves, 
should  the  peers  not  fulfil  this  duty,  were  to  cause  elections 
to  be  duly  made  ;  and,  in  their  default,  at  a  prescribed  time 
the  electors  themselves  were  to  proceed  to  choose  their  rep 
resentatives.  No  future  parliament  was  to  be  dissolved  or 
adjourned  without  its  own  consent  in  less  than  fifty  days 
from  the  opening  of  its  session.  It  is  more  reasonable  to 
doubt  whether  even  these  provisions  would  have  afforded 
an  adequate  security  for  the  periodical  assembling  of  parlia 
ment,  whether  the  supine  and  courtier-like  character  of  the 
peers,  the  want  of  concert  and  energy  in  the  electors  them 
selves,  would  not  have  enabled  the  government  to  set  the 
statute  at  nought,  than  to  censure  them  as  derogatory  to  the 
reasonable  prerogative  and  dignity  of  the  crown.  To  this 
important  bill  the  king,  with  some  apparent  unwillingness, 
gave  his  assent.1  It  effected,  indeed,  a  strange  revolution  in 
the  system  of  his  government.  The  nation  set  a  due  value  on 
this  admirable  statute,  the  passing  of  which  they  welcomed 
with  bonfires  and  every  mark  of  joy. 

After  laying  this  solid  foundation  for  the  maintenance  of 
Beneficial  such  laws  as  they  might  deem  necessary,  the 
laws.  house  of  commons  proceeded  to  cut  away  the 

more  flagrant  and  recent  usurpations  of  the  crown.     They 

i  Parl.  Hist.  702,  717.     Stat.  16  Car.  I.,  c.  1. 


CHA.  I.  — 1040-42.  BENEFICIAL   LAWS.  99 

passed  a  bill  declaring  ship-money  illegal,  and  annulling  the 
judgment  of  the  exchequer  chamber  against  Mr.  Hampden.1 
They  put  an  end  to  another  contested  prerogative,  which, 
though  incapable  of  vindication  on  any  legal  authority,  had 
more  support  from  a  usage  of  fourscore  years  —  the  levying 
of  customs  on  merchandise.  In  an  act  granting  the  king 
tonnage  and  poundage  it  is  "  declared  and  enacted  that  it  is, 
and  hath  been,  the  ancient  right  of  the  subjects  of  this  realm, 
that  no  subsidy,  custom,  impost,  or  other  charge  whatsoever, 
ought  or  may  be  laid  or  imposed  upon  any  merchandise  ex 
ported  or  imported  by  subjects,  denizens,  or  aliens,  without 
common  consent  in  parliament."  '2  This  is  the  last  statute 
that  has  been  found  necessary  to  restrain  the  crown  from 
arbitrary  taxation,  and  may  be  deemed  the  complement  of 
those  numerous  provisions  which  the  virtue  of  ancient  times 
had  extorted  from  the  first  and  third  Edwards. 

Yet  these  acts  were  hardly  so  indispensable,  nor  wrought 
so  essential  a  change  in  the  character  of  our  mon-  observa- 
archy,  as  that  which  abolished  the  star-chamber.  tions- 
Though  it  was  evident  how  little  the  statute  of  Henry  VII. 
could  bear  out  that  overweening  power  it  had  since  arrogated, 
though  the  statute-book  and  parliamentary  records  of  the  best 
ages  were  irrefragable  testimonies  against  its  usurpations ; 
yet  the  course  of  precedents  under  the  Tudor  and  Stuart 
families  was  so  invariable  that  nothing  more  was  at  first  in 
tended  than  a  bill  to  regulate  that  tribunal.  A  suggestion, 
thrown  out,  as  Clarendon  informs  us,  by  one  not  at  all  con 
nected  with  the  more  ardent  reformers,  led  to  the  substitu 
tion  of  a  bill  for  taking  it  altogether  away.3  This  abrogates 

1  Stat.  16  Cnr.  I.,  c.  14.  Berkshire,  were  zealous  royalists  during 

2  C.   8,      The  king  had   professed,  in  the   subsequent  war.      Parl.    Hist.   722. 
lord-keeper  Finch's   speech   on   opening  But  he  is  not,  I  presume,  the  person  to 
the   parliament  of  April,   1640,  that   he  whom  Clarendon  alludes.     This  author 
had  only  taken  tonnage  and  poundage  de  insinuates  that  the  act  for  taking  away 
facto,  without  claiming  it  as  a  right,  and  the    star-chamber    passed    both    houses 
had  caused  a  bill  to  be  prepared  grant-  without  sufficient  deliberation,  and  that 
ing  it  to  him  from  the  commencement  of  the  peers  did  not  venture  to  make  any 
his  reign.     Parl.  Hist.  533.     See  preface  opposition  ;  whereas  there  were  two  con- 
to  Hargrave's  Collection  of  Law  Tracts,  fereuces  between  the  houses  on  the  sub- 
p.  195,  and   Rymer,    xx.   118,  for  what  ject,  and  several  amendments  and  pro- 
Charles  did  with  respect  to  impositions  visos  made  by  the  lords  and  agreed  to  by 
on    merchandise.      The  long  parliament  the   commons.     Scarce  any  bill,   during 
called  the  farmers  to  account.  this  session,  received  so  much  attention. 

3  16  Car.  I.  c.  10.      The  abolition  of  The  king  made  some  difficulty  about  as- 
the  star-chamber  was  first  moved,  March  senting  to  the  bills  taking  away  the  star- 
5th.  1641.  by  lord  Andover,  in  the  house  chamber    and    high-commission    courts, 
of  lords,  to  which  he  had  been  called  by  but  soon  gave  way.     Parl.  Hist.  853. 
writ.    Both  he  and  his  father,  the  earl  of 


100  ABOLITION   OF  CHAP.  IX. 

all  exercise  of  jurisdiction,  properly  so  called,  whether  of  a 
civil  or  criminal  nature,  by  the  privy  council  as  well  as  the 
star-chamber.  The  power  of  examining  and  committing 
persons  charged  with  offences  is  by  no  means  taken  away  ; 
but,  with  a  retrospect  to  the  language  held  by  the  judges  and 
crown  lawyers  in  some  cases  that  have  been  mentioned,  it  is 
enacted,  that  every  person  committed  by  the  council  or  any 
of  them,  or  by  the  king's  special  command,  may  have  his 
writ  of  habeas  corpus;  in  the  return  to  which  the  officer  in 
whose  custody  he  is  shall  certify  the  true  cause  of  his  com 
mitment,  which  the  court  from  whence  the  writ  has  issued 
shall  within  three  days  examine,  in  order  to  see  whether  the 
cause  thus  certified  appear  to  be  just  and  legal  or  not,  and  do 
justice  accordingly  by  delivering,  bailing,  or  remanding  the 
party.  Thus  fell  the  great  court  of  star-chamber,  and  with 
it  the  whole  irregular  and  arbitrary  practice  of  government, 
that  had  for  several  centuries  so  thwarted  the  operation  and 
obscured  the  light  of  our  free  constitution,  that  many  have 
been  prone  to  deny  the  existence  of  those  liberties  which 
they  found  so  often  infringed,  and  to  mistake  the  violations 
of  law  for  its  standard. 

AVith  the  court  of  star-chamber  perished  that  of  the  high- 
commission,  a  younger  birth  of  tyranny,  but  perhaps  even 
more  hateful,  from  the  peculiar  irritation  of  the  times.  It 
had  stretched  its  authority  beyond  the  tenor  of  the  act  of 
Elizabeth  whereby  it  had  been  created,  and  which  limits  its 
competence  to  the  correction  of  ecclesiastical  offences  ac 
cording  to  the  known  boundaries  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction, 
assuming  a  right  not  only  to  imprison,  but  to  fine,  the  laity, 
which  was  generally  reckoned  illegal.1  The  statute  repealing 
that  of  Elizabeth,  under  which  the  high  commission  existed, 
proceeds  to  take  away  from  the  ecclesiastical  courts  all  power 
of  inflicting  temporal  penalties,  in  terms  so  large,  and  doubt 
less  not  inadvertently  employed,  as  to  render  their  juris 
diction  nugatory.  This  part  of  the  act  was  repealed  after 
the  Restoration ;  and,  like  the  other  measures  of  that  time, 
with  little  care  to  prevent  the  recurrence  of  those  abuses 
which  had  provoked  its  enactments.2 

l  Coke   has  strongly  argued   the  ille-  liams,  "  nothing  but  the  old  rusty  sword 

gality  of  fining  and  imprisoning  by  the  of  the  church,  excommunication.''     Ca- 

high  commission  ;  4th  lust.  324.    And  he  bala,  p.  103.     Care  was  taken  to  restore 

omitted  this  power  in  a  commission  he  this  authority  in  the  reign  of  Charles, 

drew,   '•  leaving  us,"   says  bishop   Wil-  2  16  Car.  I.  c.  11. 


CHA.  I.  — 1640-42.   IRREGULAR  TRIBUNALS."  101 

A  single  clause  in  the  act  that  abolished  thfe  staf-etitimVer 
was  sufficient  to  annihilate  the  arbitrary  jurisdiction  of  sev 
eral  other  irregular  tribunals,  grown  out  of  the  despotic  J 
temper  of  the  Tudor  dynasty :  —  the  court  of  the  president 
and  council  of  the  North,  long  obnoxious  to  the  common 
lawyers,  and  lately  the  sphere  of  Strafford's  tyrannical  ar 
rogance  ; :  the  court  of  the  president  and  council  of  Wales 
and  the  Welsh  marches,  which  had  pretended,  as  before 
mentioned,  to  a  jurisdiction  over  the  adjacent  counties  of 
Salop,  Worcester,  Hereford,  and  Gloucester ;  with  those  of 
the  duchy  of  Lancaster  and  county  palatine  of  Chester. 
These,  under  various  pretexts,  had  usurped  so  extensive  a 
cognizance  as  to  deprive  one  third  of  England  of  the  privi 
leges  of  the  common  law.  The  jurisdiction,  however,  of  the 
two  latter  courts  in  matters  touching  the  king's  private  estate 
has  not  been  taken  away  by  the  statute.  Another  act  afford 
ed  remedy  for  some  abuses  in  the  stannary  courts  of  Corn 
wall  and  Devon.2  Others  retrenched  the  vexatious  prerog 
ative  of  purveyance,  and  took  away  that  of  compulsory 
knighthood.3  And  one  of  greater  importance  put  an  end  to 
a  fruitful  source  of  oppression  and  complaint  by  determining 
forever  the  extent  of  royal  forests,  according  to  their  boun 
daries  in  the  twentieth  year  of  James,  annulling  all  the 
perambulations  and  inquests  by  which  they  had  subsequently 
been  enlarged.4 

I  must  here  reckon,  among  the  beneficial  acts  of  this  par 
liament,  one  that  passed  some  months  afterwards,  after  the 
king's  return  from  Scotland,  and  perhaps  the  only  measure 
of  that  second  period  on  which  we  can  bestow  unmixed  com 
mendation.  The  delays  and  uncertainties  of  raising  troops 
by  voluntary  enlistment,  to  which  the  temper  of  the  English 
nation,  pacific  though  intrepid,  and  impatient  of  the  strict 
control  of  martial  law,  gave  small  encouragement,  had  led  to 
the  usage  of  pressing  soldiers  for  service,  whether  in  Ireland 
or  on  foreign  expeditions.  This  prerogative  seeming  dan 
gerous  and  oppressive,  as  well  as  of  dubious  legality,  it  is 

1  Hyde  distinguished  himself  as  chair-  however,  softened  a  little  what  he   did 

man  of  the  committee  which  brought  in  say  in  one  or  two  places  ;  as  where  he 

the  bill  for  abolishing  the  co«rt  of  York,  uses  the  word   tyranny  in  speaking  of 

In  his  speech  on  presenting  this  to  the  lord  Mountnorris's  case, 

lords  he  alludes  to  the  tyranny  of  Straf-  "  C,  15. 

ford,  not  rudely,  but  in  a  style  hardly  3  C.  19,  20. 

consistent    with    that    of    his    History.  *  16  Car.  I.  c.  16. 
Parl.   Hist.   766.      The  editors   of  this, 


l62  IMPRESSMENT.  CHAP.  IX. 

Irecite'ii  in- the  preamble' -of  an  act  empowering  the  king  to 
levy  troops  by  this  compulsory  method  for  the  special  exi 
gency  of  the  Irish  rebellion,  that,  "  by  the  laws  of  this  realm, 
none  of  his  majesty's  subjects  ought  to  be  impressed  or  com 
pelled  to  go  out  of  his  country  to  serve  as  a  soldier  in  the 
wars,  except  in  case  of  necessity  of  the  sudden  coming  in  of 
strange  enemies  into  the  kingdom,  or  except  they  be  other 
wise  bound  by  the  tenure  of  their  lands  or  possessions."  l 
The  king,  in  a  speech  from  the  throne,  adverted  to  this 
bill  while  passing  through  the  houses,  as  an  invasion  of  his 
prerogative.  This  notice  of  a  parliamentary  proceeding  the 
commons  resented  as  a  breach  of  their  privilege  ;  and  having 
obtained  the  consent  of  the  lords  to  a  joint  remonstrance,  the 
king,  who  was  in  no  state  to  maintain  his  objection,  gave  his 
assent  to  the  bill.  In  the  reigns  of  Elizabeth  and  James  we 
have  seen  frequent  instances  of  the  crown's  interference  as 
to  matters  debated  in  parliament.  But  from  the  time  of  the 
long  parliament  the  law  of  privilege,  in  this  respect,  has 
stood  on  an  unshaken  basis.2 

These  are  the  principal  statutes  which  we  owe  to  this  par 
liament.  They  give  occasion  to  two  remarks  of  no  slight 
importance.  In  the  first  place,  it  will  appear,  on  comparing 
them  with  our  ancient  laws  and  history,  that  they  made 
scarce  any  material  change  in  our  constitution  such  as  it 
had  been  established  and  recognized  under  the  house  of 
Plantagenet :  the  law  for  triennial  parliaments  even  receded 
from  those  unrepealed  provisions  of  the  reign  of  Edward 
III.,  that  they  should  be  assembled  annually.  The  court 
of  star-chamber,  if  it  could  be  said  to  have  a  legal  jurisdic 
tion  at  all  which,  by  that  name  it  had  not,  traced  it  only  to 
the  Tudor  period  ;  its  recent  excesses  were  diametrically  op 
posed  to  the  existing  laws  and  the  protestations  of  ancient 
parliaments.  The  court  of  ecclesiastical  commission  was 
an  offset  of  the  royal  supremacy,  established  at  the  Refor 
mation.  The  impositions  on  merchandise  were  both  plainly 
illegal,  and  of  no  long  usage.  That  of  ship-money  was  fla 
grantly,  and  by  universal  confession,  a  strain  of  arbitrary 
power  without  pretext  of  right.  Thus,  in  by  far  the  greater 

1  C.  28.  commons,  does  not  censure  their  explicit 

2  Journals,  16th  Dec.     Parl.  Hist.  968.  assertion  of  this  privilege.     He  lays  the 
Nalson,  750.     It  is  remarkable  that  Clar-  blame  of  the  king's  interference  on  St. 
endon,  who  is  sufficiently  jealous  of  all  John's  advice  ;   which  is  very  improba- 
that  he  thought  encroachment  in   the  ble. 


CHA.  I. —  1640-42.      TRIENNIAL   PARLIAMENTS.  103 

part  of  the  enactments  of  1641,  the  monarchy  lost  nothing 
that  it  had  anciently  possessed ;  and  the  balance  of  our 
constitution  might  seem  rather  to  have  been  restored  to  its 
former  equipoise  than  to  have  undergone  any  fresh  change. 

But  those  common  liberties  of  England  which  our  fore 
fathers  had,  with  such  commendable  perseverance,  extorted 
from  the  grasp  of  power,  though  by  no  means  so  merely 
theoretical  and  nugatory  in  effect  as  some  would  insinuate, 
were  yet  very  precarious  in  the  best  periods,  neither  well 
defined,  nor  exempt  from  anomalous  exceptions,  or  from  oc 
casional  infringements.  Some  of  them,  such  as  the  statute 
for  annual  sessions  of  parliament,  had  gone  into  disuse. 
Those  that  were  most  evident  could  not  be  enforced  ;  and  the 
new  tribunals  that,  whether  by  law  or  usurpation,  had  reared 
their  heads  over  the  people,  had  made  almost  all  public  and 
personal  rights  dependent  on  their  arbitrary  will.  It  was 
necessary,  therefore,  to  infuse  new  blood  into  the  languid 
frame,  and  so  to  renovate  our  ancient  constitution  that  the 
present  era  should  seem  almost  a  new  birth  of  liberty.  Such 
was  the  aim,  especially,  of  those  provisions  which  placed  the 
return  of  parliaments  at  fixed  intervals,  beyond  the  power  of 
the  crown  to  elude.  It  was  hoped  that  by  their  means,  so 
long  as  a  sense  of  public  spirit  should  exist  in  the  nation 
(and  beyond  that  time  it  is  vain  to  think  of  liberty),  no 
prince,  however  able  and  ambitious,  could  be  free  from  re 
straint  for  more  than  three  years ;  an  interval  too  short  for 
the  completion  of  arbitrary  projects,  and  which  few  ministers 
Avould  venture  to  employ  in  such  a  manner  as  might  expose 
them  to  the  wrath  of  parliament. 

It  is  to  be  observed,  in  the  second  place,  that  by  these 
salutary  restrictions,  and  some  new  retrenchments  of  per 
nicious  or  abused  prerogative,  the  long  parliament  formed 
our  constitution  such  nearly  as  it  now  exists.  Laws  of  great 
importance  were  doubtless  enacted  in  subsequent  times,  par 
ticularly  at  the  Revolution  ;  but  none  of  them,  perhaps,  were 
strictly  necessary  for  the  preservation  of  our  civil  and  politi 
cal  privileges;  and  it  is  rather  from  1641  than  any  other 
epoch,  that  we  may  date  their  full  legal  establishment.  That 
single  statute  which  abolished  the  star-chamber  gave  every 
man  a  security  which  no  other  enactments  could  have  af 
forded,  and  which  no  government  could  essentially  impair. 


104  CHARACTER  OF  LONG  PARLIAMENT.       CHAP.  IX. 

Though  the  reigns  of  the  two  latter  Stuarts,  accordingly,  are 
{  justly  obnoxious,  and  were  marked  by  several  illegal  meas 
ures,  yet,  whether  we  consider  the  number  and  magnitude  of 
their  transgressions  of  law,  or  the  practical  oppression  of 
their  government,  these  princes  fell  very  short  of  the  des 
potism  that  had  been  exercised,  either  under  the  Tudors  or 
the  two  first  of  their  own  family. 

/  From  this  survey  of  the  good  works  of  the  long  parlia- 
/  ment  we  must  turn  our  eyes  with  equal  indifference  to  the 
i  opposite  picture  of  its  errors  and  offences;  faults  which, 
j  though  the  mischiefs  they  produced  were  chiefly  temporary, 
have  yet  served  to  obliterate  from  the  recollection  of  too 
many  the  permanent  blessings  we  have  inherited  through  its 
\  exertions.  In  reflecting  on  the  events  which  so  soon  clouded 
a  scene  of  glory,  we  ought  to  learn  the  dangers  that  attend 
all  revolutionary  crises,  however  justifiable  or  necessary ; 
and  that,  even  when  posterity  may  have  cause  to  rejoice  in 
the  ultimate  result,  the  existing  generation  are  seldom  com 
pensated  for  their  present  loss  of  tranquillity.  The  very 
enemies  of  this  parliament  confess  that  they  met  in  Novem 
ber  1640  with  almost  unmingled  zeal  for  the  public  good, 
and  with  loyal  attachment  to  the  crown.  They  were  the 
,  chosen  representatives  of  the  commons  of  England,  in  an 
age  more  eminent  for  steady  and  scrupulous  conscientious 
ness  in  private  life  than  any,  perhaps,  that  had  gone  before 
or  has  followed ;  not  the  demagogues  or  adventurers  of 
transient  popularity,  but  men  well-born  and  wealthy,  than 
whom  there  could  perhaps  never  be  assembled  five  hundred 
more  adequate  to  redress  the  grievances,  or  to  fix  the  laws, 
of  a  great  nation.  But  they  were  misled  by  the  excess 
of  two  passions,  both  just  and  natural  in  the  circumstances 
wherein  they  found  themselves,  resentment  and  distrust ; 
passions  eminently  contagious,  and  irresistible  when  they 
seize  on  the  zeal  and  credulity  of  a  popular  assembly.  The 
one  betrayed  them  into  a  measure  certainly  severe  and 
sanguinary,  and  in  the  eyes  of  posterity  exposed  to  greater 
reproach  than  it  deserved,  the  attainder  of  lord  Stratford, 
and  some  other  proceedings  of  too  much  violence  ;  the  other 
gave  a  color  to  all  their  resolutions,  and  aggravated  their 
differences  with  the  king  till  there  remained  no  other  arbi 
trator  but  the  sword. 


CHA.  I.  -  1040-42.  IMPEACHMENT  OF  STRAFFORD.       105 

Those  who  know  the  conduct  and  character  of  the  earl  ^  / 
of  Strafford,  his  abuse  of  power  in  the  North,  his  Impeach. 
far  more  outrageous  trangressions  in  Ireland,  his  ment  of 
dangerous  influence  over  the  king's  counsels,  can 
not  hesitate  to  admit,  if  indeed  they  profess  any  regard  to 
the  constitution  of  this  kingdom,  that  to  bring  so  great  a 
delinquent  to  justice  according  to  the  known  process  of  law 
was  among  the  primary  duties  of  the  new  parliament.  It 
was  that  which  all,  with  scarce  an  exception  but  among  his 
own  creatures  (for  most  of  the  court  were  openly  or  in 
secret  his  enemies1),  ardently  desired;  yet  which  the  king's 
favor  and  his  own  commanding  genius  must  have  rendered 
a  doubtful  enterprise.  He  came  to  London,  not  unconscious 
of  the  danger,  by  his  master's  direct  injunctions.  The  first 
days  of  the  session  were  critical ;  and  any  vacillation  or 
delay  in  the  commons  might  probably  have  given  time  for 
some  strong  exertion  of  power  to  frustrate  their  designs. 
We  must  therefore  consider  the  bold  suggestion  of  Pym,  to 
carry  up  to  the  lords  an  impeachment  for  high  treason 
against  Strafford,  not  only  as  a  master-stroke  of  that  policy 
which  is  fittest  for  revolutions,  but  as  justifiable  by  the 
circumstances  wherein  they  stood.  Nothing  short  of  a  com 
mitment  to  the  Tower  would  have  broken  the  spell  that  so 
many  years  of  arbitrary  dominion  had  been  working.  It 
was  dissipated  in  the  instant  that  the  people  saw  him  in 
the  hands  of  the  usher  of  the  black  rod :  and  with  his  power 
fell  also  that  of  his  master  ;  so  that  Charles,  from  the  very 
hour  of  Stratford's  impeachment,  never  once  ventured  to 
resume  the  high  tone  of  command  congenial  to  his  disposi 
tion,  or  to  speak  to  the  commons  but  as  one  complaining  of  a 
superior  force.2 

i    "A    greater     and    more    universal  questioning  some  of  the  great  ones,  they 

hatred,"  says  Northumberland  in  a  let-  intend  to  endeavor  the  displacing  of  Jer- 

ter    to  Leicester,  Nov.  13,  1640  (Sidney  myn,  Newcastle,  and  Walter  Montague." 

Papers,  ii.  663).   "  was  never  contracted  -  Clarendon,  i.  305.      No  one  opposed 

by  any  person  than  he  has  drawn  upon  the  resolution  to  impeach  the  lord-lieu- 

himself.     He  is  not  at  all  dejected,  but  tenant,  save  that  Falkland  suggested  the 

believes  confidently  to  clear  himself  in  appointment   of  a    committee,    as  more 

the  opinion  of  all  equal  and  indifferent-  suitable  to  the  gravity  of  their  proceed- 

minded  hearers,  when  he  shall  come  to  ings.     But   Pym   frankly  answered  that 

make  his  defence.     The  king  is  in  such  this  would  ruin  all ;  since  Strafford  would 

a  strait  that  I  do  not  know  how  he  will  doubtless  obtain  a  dissolution  of  the  par- 

possibly  avoid,  without  endangering  the  liament,  unless  they  could  shut  him  out 

loss  of  the  whole   kingdom,   the    giving  from  access  to  the  king. 

way  to  the  remove  of  divers  persons,  as  The  letters  of  Robert  Baillie,  Principal 

well  as  other  things  that  will  be  demanded  of  the  University  of  Glasgow  (two  vols., 

by  the  parliament.    After  they  have  done  Edinburgh,  1775)  abound   with  curious 


106 


DISCUSSION  OF  THE  JUSTICE 


CHAP.  IX. 


The  articles  of  Stratford's  impeachment  relate  principally 
Discussion  to  ^n's  conduct  in  Ireland.  For  though  he  had 
of  its  jus-  begun  to  act  with  violence  in  the  court  of  York,  as 
lord-president  of  the  North,  and  was  charged  with 
having  procured  a  commission  investing  him  with  exorbitant 
power,  yet  he  had  too  soon  left  that  sphere  of  dominion  for 
the  lieutenancy  of  Ireland  to  give  any  wide  scope  for  prose 
cution.  But  in  Ireland  it  was  sufficiently  proved  that  he  had 
arrogated  an  authority  beyond  what  the  crown  had  ever  law 
fully  enjoyed,  and  even  beyond  the  example  of  former  vice 
roys  of  that  island,  where  the  disordered  state  of  society,  the 
frequency  of  rebellions,  and  the  distance  from  all  control,  had 
given  rise  to  such  a  series  of  arbitrary  precedents  as  would 
have  almost  excused  any  ordinary  stretch  of  power.1  Not- 


information  as  to  this  period,  and  for 
several  subsequent  years.  Baillie  was 
one  of  the  Scots  commissioners  deputed 
to  London  at  the  end  of  1640,  and  took 
an  active  share  in  promoting  the  destruc 
tion  of  episcopacy.  His  correspondence 
breathes  all  the  narrow  and  exclusive 
bigotry  of  the  presbyterian  school.  The 
following  passage  is  so  interesting,  that, 
notwithstanding  its  length,  it  may  find  a 
place  here  :  — 

"  The  lieutenant  of  Ireland  came  but 
on  Monday  to  town  late,  on  Tuesday 
rested,  on  Wednesday  came  to  parliament, 
but  ere  night  he  was  caged.  Intolerable 
pride  and  oppression  cries  to  heaven  for 
a  vengeance.  The  lower  house  closed 
their  doors ;  the  speaker  kept  the  keys 
till  his  accusation  was  concluded.  There 
after  Mr.  Pym  went  up,  with  a  number 
at  his  back,  to  the  higher  house  ;  and.  in 
a  pretty  short  speech,  did,  in  the  name  of 
the  lower  house,  and  in  the  name  of  the 
commons  of  all  England,  accuse  Thomas 
earl  of  Strafford,  lord-lieutenant  of  Ire 
land,  of  high  treason  ;  and  required  his 
person  to  be  arrested  till  probation  might 
be  heard  ;  so  Mr.  Pym  and  his  back  were 
removed.  The  lords  began  to  consult 
011  that  strange  and  unexpected  motion. 
The  word  goes  in  haste  to  the  lord-lieu 
tenant,  where  he  was  with  the  king  ;  with 
speed  he  comes  to  the  house ;  he  calls 
rudely  at  the  door;  James  Maxwell, 
keeper  of  the  black  rod,  opens  :  his  lord 
ship,  with  a  proud  glooming  countenance, 
makes  towards  his  place  at  the  board 
head  :  but  at  once  many  bid  him  void 
the  house  ;  so  he  is  forced,  in  confusion, 
to  go  to  the  door  till  he  was  called.  After 
consultation,  being  called  in,  he  stands, 
but  is  commanded  to  kneel,  and  on  his 
knees  to  hear  the  sentence.  Being  on 


his  knees,  he  is  delivered  to  the  keeper  of 
the  black  rod,  to  be  prisoner  till  he  was 
cleared  of  these  crimes  the  house  of  com 
mons  had  charged  him  with.  He  offered 
to  speak,  but  was  commanded  to  be  gone 
without  a  word.  In  the  outer  room, 
James  Maxwell  required  him,  as  prisoner, 
to  deliver  his  sword.  When  he  had  got 
it,  he  cries  with  a  loud  voice  for  his  man 
to  carry  my  lord-lieutenant's  sword.  This 
done,  he  makes  through  a  number  of 
people  towards  his  coach  ;  all  gazing,  no 
man  capping  to  him,  before  whom,  that 
morning,  the  greatest  of  England  would 
have  stood  uncovered,  all  crying,  '  What 
is  the  matter? '  He  said,  '  A  small  mat 
ter,  I  warrant  j'ou.'  They  replied,  'Yes, 
indeed,  high-treason  is  a  small  matter.' 
Coming  to  the  place  where  he  expected 
his  coach,  it  was  not  there ;  so  he  behoved 
to  return  that  same  way,  through  a  world 
of  gazing  people.  When  at  last  he  had 
found  his  coach,  and  was  entering,  James 
Maxwell  told  him.  '  Your  lordship  is  my 
prisoner,  and  must  go  in  my  coach ; '  and 
so  he  behoved  to  do."  P.  217. 

i  The  trial  of  Stratford  is  best  to  be 
read  in  Rushworth  or  Nalson.  The  ac 
count  in  the  new  edition  of  the  State 
Trials,  I  know  not  whence  taken,  is 
curious,  as  coming  from  an  eye-witness, 
though  very  partial  to  the  prisoner  ;  but 
it  can  hardly  be  so  accurate  as  the  others. 
His  famous  peroration  was  printed  at  the 
time  in  a  loose  sheet.  It  is  in  the  Somers 
Tracts.  Many  of  the  charges  seem  to 
have  been  sufficiently  proved,  and  would 
undoubtedly  justify  a  severe  sentence  on 
an  impeachment  for  misdemeanors.  It 
was  not  pretended  by  the  managers  that 
more  than  two  or  three  of  them  amount 
ed  to  treason  ;  but  it  is  the  unquestion 
able  right  of  the  commons  to  blend  of- 


CHA.  I.  — 1640-42.    OF   STRAFFORD'S   IMPEACHMENT.  107 

withstanding  this,  however,  when  the  managers  came  to  state 
and  substantiate  their  articles  of  accusation,  though  some  were 
satisfied  that  there  was  enough  to  warrant  the  severest  judg 
ment,  yet  it  appeared  to  many  dispassionate  men  that,  even 
supposing  the  evidence  as  to  all  of  them  to  be  legally  convinc 
ing,  they  could  not,  except  through  a  dangerous  latitude  of 
construction,  be  aggravated  into  treason.  The  law  of  Eng 
land  is  silent  as  to  conspiracies  against  itself.  St.  John  and 
Maynard  struggled  in  vain  to  prove  that  a  scheme  to  over 
turn  the  fundamental  laws  and  to  govern  by  a  standing  army, 
though  as  infamous  as  any  treason,  could  be  brought  within 
the  words  of  the  statute  of  Edward  III.,  as  a  compassing  of 
the  king's  death.  Nor,  in  fact,  was  there  any  conclusive  evi 
dence  against  Strafford  of  such  a  design.  The  famous  words 
imputed  to  him  by  sir  Henry  Vane,  though  there  can  be  little 
reason  to  question  that  some  such  were  spoken,  seem  too  im 
perfectly  reported,1  as  well  as  uttered  too  much  in  the  heat 
of  passion,  to  furnish  a  substantive  accusation ;  and  I  should 
rather  found  my  conviction  of  Stratford's  systematic  hostility 
to  our  fundamental  laws  on  his  correspondence  since  brought 
to  light,  as  well  as  on  his  general  conduct  in  administration, 
than  on  any  overt  acts  proved  on  his  impeachment.  The 
presumption  of  history,  to  whose  mirror  the  scattered  rays  of 
moral  evidence  converge,  may  be  irresistible,  when  the  legal 
inference  from  insulated  actions  is  not  only  technically,  but 


fences  of  a  different  degree   in  an  im-  to  find  that  their  obedience  to  the  king 

peachment.  could    be   turned    into    treason    against 

It  has  been  usually  said  that  the  com-  him. 

mons  had  recourse  to  the  bill  of  attainder  *  They  were  confirmed,  in  a  consider- 

because  they  found  it  impossible  to  sup-  able  degree,  by  the  evidence  of  Northmn- 

port  the  impeachment  for  treason.     But  berlaud  and  Bristol,  and  even  of  Usher 

St.  John    positively  denies   that    it  was  and  Juxon.     Rushw.  Abr.  iv.  455,  559, 

intended  to  avoid  the  judicial  mode  of  586  ;  Baillie,  284.     But  are  they  not  also 

proceeding.     Nalson,  ii.  162.     And,  what  exactly  according  to  the  principles  always 

is  stronger,  the   lords  themselves  voted  avowed  and  acted  upon  by  that  minister, 

upon  the  articles  judicially,  and  not  as  and  by  the  whole  phalanx  of  courtiers, 

if  they  were  enacting  a  legislative  meas-  that  a  king  of  England  does  very  well  to 

ure.     As  to  the  famous  proviso  in  the  ask  his  people's  consent  in  the  first  in- 

bill  of  attainder,  that  the  judges  should  stance,  but,  if  that  is  frowardly  refused, 

determine    nothing    to    be    treason    by  he  has  a  paramount  right  to  maintain 

virtue  of  this  bill  which  they  would  not  his  government  by  any  means  ? 

have  determined  to  be  treason  otherwise  It  may  be  remarked   that  Clarendon 

(on  which  Hume  and  many  others  have  says  "  the  law  was  clear  that  less  than 

relied  to  show  the  consciousness  of  par-  two  witnesses  ought   not  to  be  received 

liament  that  the  measure  was  not  war-  in  a  case   of    treason."      Yet    I    doubt 

ranted  by  the  existing  law),  it  seems  to  whether  any  one  had  been  allowed  the 

have  been  introduced  in  order  to  quiet  benefit  of  that   law  ;   and   the  contrary 

the  apprehensions  of  some  among  the  had    been    asserted    repeatedly    by    the 

peers,  who  had  gone  great  lengths  with  judges, 
the  late  government,  and  were  astonished 


108  DISCUSSION   OF   THE  JUSTICE  CHAP.  IX. 

substantially,  inconclusive.  Yet  we  are  not  to  suppose  that 
the  charges  against  this  minister  appeared  so  evidently  to  fall 
short  of  high  treason,  according  to  the  apprehension  of  that 
age,  as  in  later  times  has  usually  been  taken  for  granted. 
Accustomed  to  the  unjust  verdicts  obtained  in  cases  of  trea 
son  by  the  court,  the  statute  of  Edward  having  been  perpet 
ually  stretched  by  constructive  interpretations,  neither  the 
people  nor  the  lawyers  annexed  a  definite  sense  to  that  crime. 
The  judges  themselves,  on  a  solemn  reference  by  the  house 
of  lords  for  their  opinion  whether  some  of  the  articles  charged 
against  Strafford  amounted  to  treason,  answered  unanimous 
ly,  that,  upon  all  which  their  lordships  had  voted  to  be 
proved,  it  was  their  opinion  the  earl  of  Strafford  did  deserve 
to  undergo  the  pains  and  penalties  of  high  treason  by  law.1 
And,  as  an  apology,  at  least,  for  this  judicial  opinion,  it  may 
be  remarked  that  the  fifteenth  article  of  the  impeachment, 
charging  him  with  raising  money  by  his  own  authority,  and 
quartering  troops  on  the  people  of  Ireland,  in  order  to  com 
pel  their  obedience  to  his  unlawful  requisitions  (upon  which, 
and  one  other  article,  not  on  the  whole  matter,  the  peers 
voted  him  guilty),  does,  in  fact,  approach  very  nearly,  if  we 
may  not  say  more,  to  a  substantive  treason  within  the  statute 
of  Edward  III.,  as  a  levying  war  against  the  king,  even  with 
out  reference  to  some  Irish  acts  of  parliament  upon  which 
the  managers  of  the  impeachment  relied.  It  cannot  be  ex 
travagant  to  assert  that,  if  the  colonel  of  a  regiment  were  to 
issue  an  order  commanding  the  inhabitants  of  the  district 
where  it  is  quartered  to  contribute  certain  sums  of  money, 
and  were  to  compel  the  payment  by  quartering  troops  on  the 
houses  of  those  who  refused,  in  a  general  and  systematic 
manner,  he  would,  according  to  a  warrantable  construction 
of  the  statutes,  be  guilty  of  the  treason  called  levying  war  on 
the  king ;  and  that,  if  we  could  imagine  him  to  do  this  by  an 
order  from  the  privy  council  or  the  war-office,  the  case  would 
not  be  at  all  altered.  On  the  other  hand,  a  single  act  of  such 

i  Lords'  Journals,  May  6 ;  Part.  Hist,  to  the  mouth  of  Williams.  Parr's  Life 
757.  This  opinion  of  the  judges,  which  of  Usher,  p.  45  ;  Hacket's  Life  of  Wil 
ls  not  mentioned  by  Clarendon,  Hume,  Hams,  p.  160.  Juxon  is  said  to  have 
and  other  common 'historians,  seems  to  stood  alone,  among  five  bishops,  in  ad- 
have  cost  Strafford  his  life.  It  was  relied  vising  the  king  to  follow  his  conscience, 
on  by  some  bishops,  especially  Usher,  Clarendon,  indeed,  does  not  mention  this, 
•whom  Charles  consulted  whether  he  though  he  glances  at  Usher  with  some  re- 
should  pass  the  bill  of  attainder,  though  proach,  p.  451 ;  but  the  story  is  as  old  as 
Clarendon  puts  much  worse  casuistry  in-  the  Icon  Basilike,  in  which  it  is  alluded  to. 


CHA.  I.  -  1040-42.      OF    STAFFORD'S   IMPEACHMENT. 


109 


violence  might  be  (in  technical  language)  trespass,  misde 
meanor,  or  felony,  according  to  circumstances ;  but  would 
want  the  generality  which,  as  the  statute  has  been  construed, 
determines  its  character  to  be  treason.  It  is  however  mani 
fest  that  Stafford's  actual  enforcement  of  his  order,  by 
quartering  soldiers,  was  not  by  any  means  proved  to  be  so 
frequently  done  as  to  bring  it  within  the  line  of  treason  ;  and 
the  evidence  is  also  open  to  every  sort  of  legal  objection. 
But  in  that  age  the  rules  of  evidence,  so  scrupulously  de 
fined  since,  were  either  very  imperfectly  recognized,  or  con 
tinually  transgressed.  If  then  Strafford  could  be  brought 
within  the  letter  of  the  law,  and  if  he  were  also  deserving  of 
death  for  his  misdeeds  towards  the  commonwealth,  it  might 
be  thought  enough  to  justify  his  condemnation,  although  he 
had  not  offended  against  what  seemed  to  be  the  spirit  and  in 
tention  of  the  statute.  This  should,  at  least,  restrain  us  from 
passing  an  unqualified  censure  on  those  who  voted  against 
him,  comprehending  undoubtedly  the  far  more  respectable 
portion  of  the  commons,  though  only  twenty-six  peers  against 
nineteen  formed  the  feeble  majority  on  the  bill  of  attainder,1 
It  may  be  observed  that  the  house  of  commons  acted  in  one 


i  The  names  of  the  fifty -nine  members 
of  the  commons  who  voted  against  the 
bill  of  attainder,  and  which  were  placarded 
as  Straffordians,  may  be  found  in  the 
Parliamentary  History  and  several  other 
books.  It  is  remarkable  that  few  of  them 
are  distinguished  persons,  none  so  much 
so  as  Selden,  whose  whole  parliamentary 
career,  notwithstanding  the  timidity  not 
very  fairly  imputed  to  him,  was  eminently 
honorable  and  independent.  But  we 
look  in  vain  for  Hyde,  Falkland,  Cole- 
pepper,  or  Palmer.  The  first,  probably, 
did  not  vote  ;  the  others  may  have  been 
in  the  majority  of  204  by  whom  the  lull 
was  passed  ;  indeed,  I  have  seen  a  MS. 
account  of  the  debate,  where  Falkland 
and  Colepepper  appear  to  have  both 
spoken  for  it.  As  to  the  lords,  we  have, 
so  far  as  I  know,  no  list  of  the  nineteen 
who  acquitted  Strafford.  It  does  not  com 
prehend  Hertford,  Bristol,  or  Holland, 
who  were  absent  (Nalson,  316),  nor  any 
of  the  popish  lords,  whether  through  fear 
or  any  private  influence.  Lord  Clare,  his 
brother-in-law,  and  lord  Saville,  a  man  of 
the  most  changeable  character,  were  his 
prominent  advocates  during  the  trial ; 
though  Bristol,  Hertford,  and  even  Say, 
desired  to  have  had  his  life  spared 
(Baillie.  243,  247,  271.  292) :  and  the  earl 
of  Bedford,  according  to  Clarendon,  would 


have  come  into  this.  But  the  sudden  and 
ill-timed  death  of  that  eminent  peer  put 
an  end  to  the  negotiation  for  bringing  the 
parliamentary  leaders  into  office,  wherein 
it  was  a  main  object  with  the  king  to 
save  the  life  of  Strafford  —  entirely,  as  I 
am  inclined  to  believe,  from  motives  of 
conscience  and  honor,  without  any  views 
of  ever  again  restoring  him  to  power. 
Charles  had  no  personal  attachment  to 
Strafford  ;  and  the  queen's  dislike  of  him 
(according  to  Clarendon  and  Burnet, 
though  it  must  be  owned  that  Madame 
de  Motteville  does  not  confirm  this),  or 
at  least  his  general  unpopularity  at  court, 
would  have  determined  the  king  to  lay 
him  aside. 

It  is  said  by  Burnet  that  the  queen 
prevailed  on  Charles  to  put  that  strange 
postscript  to  his  letter  to  the  lords,  in  be 
half  of  Strafford,  "  If  he  must  die,  it  were 
charity  to  reprieve  him  till  Saturday  ;  " 
by  which  he  manifestly  surrendered  him 
up,  and  gave  cause  to  suspect  his  own 
sincerity.  Doubts  have  been  thrown  out 
by  Carte  as  to  the  genuineness  of  Straf- 
ford's  celebrated  letter  requesting  the 
king  to  pass  the  bill  of  attainder.  They 
do  not  appear  to  be  founded  on  much 
evidence  ;  but  it  is  certain,  by  the  manner 
in  which  he  received  the  news,  that  lie  did 
not  expect  to  be  sacrificed  by  his  master. 


110  DISCUSSION   OF  THE  JUSTICE  CHAP.  IX. 

respect  with  a  genero-ity  which  the  crown  had  never  shown 
in  any  case  of  treason,  by  immediately  passing  a  bill  to  re 
lieve  his  children  from  the  penalties  of  forfeiture  and  corrup 
tion  of  blood. 

It  is  undoubtedly  a  very  important  problem  in  political 
ethics,  whether  great  offences  against  the  commonwealth  may 
riot  justly  incur  the  penalty  of  death  by  a  retrospective  act 
of  the  legislature,  which  a  tribunal  restrained  by  known  laws 
is  not  competent  to  inflict.  Bills  of  attainder  had  been  by 
no  means  uncommon  in  England,  especially  under  Henry 
VIII.  ;  but  generally  when  the  crime  charged  might  have 
been  equally  punished  by  law.  They  are  less  dangerous  than 
to  stretch  the  boundaries  of  a  statute  by  arbitrary  construction. 
Nor  do  they  seem  to  differ  at  all  in  principle  from  those  bills 
of  pains  and  penalties  which,  in  times  of  comparative  moder 
ation  and  tranquillity,  have  sometimes  been  thought  neces 
sary  to  visit  some  unforeseen  and  anomalous  transgression 
beyond  the  reach  of  our  penal  code.  There  are  many,  in 
deed,  whose  system  absolutely  rejects  all  such  retrospective 
punishment,  either  from  the  danger  of  giving  too  much  scope 
to  vindictive  passion,  or  on  some  more  abstract  principle  of 
justice.  Those  who  may  incline  to  admit  that  the  moral  com 
petence  of  the  sovereign  power  to  secure  itself  by  the  punish 
ment  of  a  heinous  offender,  even  without  the  previous  warn 
ing  of  law,  is  not  to  be  denied,  except  by  reasoning  which 
would  shake  the  foundation  of  its  right  to  inflict  punishment 
in  ordinary  cases,  will  still  be  sensible  of  the  mischief  which 
any  departure  from  stable  rules,  under  the  influence  of  the 
most  public-spirited  zeal,  is  likely  to  produce.  The  attainder 
of  Strafford  could  not  be  justifiable,  unless  it  were  necessary  ; 
nor  necessary,  if  a  lighter  penalty  would  have  been  sufficient 
for  the  public  security. 

This  therefore  becomes  a  preliminary  question,  upon  which 
the  whole  mainly  turns.  It  is  one  which  does  not  seem  to 
admit  of  a  demonstrative  answer;  but  with  which  we  can 
perhaps  deal  better  than  they  who  lived  at  that  time.  Their 
distrust  of  the  king,  their  apprehension  that  nothing  less  than 
the  delinquent  minister's  death  could  insure  them  from  his 
return  to  power,  rendered  the  leaders  of  parliament  obstinate 
against  any  proposition  of  a  mitigated  penalty.  Nor  can  it 
be  denied  that  there  are  several  instances  in  history  where 
the  favorites  of  monarchs,  after  a  transient  exile  or  impris- 


CHA.  I.  — 1640-42.      OF   STRAFFORD'S   IMPEACHMENT.  Ill 

onment,  have  returned,  on  some  fresh  wave  of  fortune,  to 
mock  or  avenge  themselves  upon  their  adversaries.  Yet  the 
prosperous  condition  of  the  popular  party,  which  nothing  but 
intemperate  passion  was  likely  to  impair,  rendered  this  contin 
gency  by  no  means  probable ;  and  it  is  against  probable  dan 
gers  that  nations  should  take  precautions,  without  aiming  at 
more  complete  security  than  the  baffling  uncertainties  of 
events  will  permit.  Such  was  Stafford's  unpopularity,  that 
he  could  never  have  gained  any  sympathy,  but  by  the  harsh 
ness  of  his  condemnation  and  the  magnanimity  it  enabled  him 
to  display.  These  have  half  redeemed  his  forfeit  fame,  and 
misled  a  generous  posterity.  It  was  agreed  on  all  hands  that 
any  punishment  which  the  law  could  award  to  the  highest 
misdemeanors,  duly  proved  on  impeachment,  must  be  justly 
inflicted.  "  I  am  still  the  same,"  said  lord  Digby,  in  his  fa 
mous  speech  against  the  bill  of  attainder,  "  in  my  opinions 
and  affections,  as  unto  the  earl  of  Strafford  ;  I  confidently 
believe  him  to  be  the  most  dangerous  minister,  the  most  in 
supportable  to  free  subjects,  that  can  be  charactered.  I  be 
lieve  him  to  be  still  that  grand  apostate  to  the  commonwealth, 
who  must  not  expect  to  be  pardoned  in  this  world  till  he  be 
despatched  to  the  other.  And  yet  let  me  tell  you,  Mr.  Speak 
er,  my  hand  must  not  be  to  that  despatch."1  These  senti 
ments,  whatever  we  may  think  of  the  sincerity  of  him  who 
uttered  them,  were  common  to  many  of  those  who  desired 
most  ardently  to  see  that  uniform  course  of  known  law  which 
neither  the  court's  lust  of  power  nor  the  clamorous  indigna 
tion  of  a  popular  assembly  might  turn  aside.  The  king, 
whose  conscience  was  so  deeply  wounded  by  his  acquiescence 
in  this  minister's  death,  would  gladly  have  assented  to  a  bill 
inflicting  the  penalty  of  perpetual  banishment ;  and  this,  ac 
companied,  as  it  ought  to  have  been,  by  degradation  from  the 
rank  for  which  he  had  sold  his  integrity,  would  surely  have 
exhibited  to  Europe  an  example  sufficiently  conspicuous  of 
just  retribution.  Though  nothing  perhaps  could  have  re-; 
stored  a  tolerable  degree  of  confidence  between  Charles  and 
the  parliament,  it  is  certain  that  his  resentment  and  aversion 
were  much  aggravated  by  the  painful  compulsion  they  had 
put  on  him,  and  that  the  schism  among  the  constitutional  par 
ty  began  from  this,  among  other  causes,  to  grow  more  sensi 
ble,  till  it  terminated  in  civil  war.2 

i  Parliamentary  History,  ii.  750.  2  See  some  judicious  remarks  ou  this 


112  APPREHENSIONS   OF   THE  COMMONS.       CHAP.  IX. 

But,  if  we  pay  such  regard  to  the  principles  of  clemency 
and  moderation,  and  of  adherence  to  the  fixed  rules  of  law, 
as  to  pass  some  censure  on  this  deviation  from  them  in  the 
attainder  of  lord  Strafford,  we  must  not  yield  to  the  clamor 
ous  invectives  of  his  admirers,  or  treat  the  prosecution  as  a 
scandalous  and  flagitious  excess  of  party  vengeance.  Look 
round  the  nations  of  the  globe,  and  say  in  what  age  or  coun 
try  would  such  a  man  have  fallen  into  the  hands  of  his  ene 
mies  without  paying  the  forfeit  of  his  offences  against  the 
commonwealth  with  his  life.  They  who  grasp  at  arbitrary 
power,  they  who  make  their  fellow-citizens  tremble  before 
them,  they  who  gratify  a  selfish  pride  by  the  humiliation  and 
servitude  of  mankind,  have  always  played  a  deep  stake ; 
and  the  more  invidious  and  intolerable  has  been  their  pre 
eminence,  their  fall  has  been  more  destructive  and  their  pun 
ishment  more  exemplary.  Something  beyond  the  retirement 
or  the  dismissal  of  such  ministers  has  seemed  necessary  to 
"  absolve  the  gods,"  and  furnish  history  with  an  awful  lesson 
of  retribution.  The  spontaneous  instinct  of  nature  has  called 
for  the  axe  and  the  gibbet  against  such  capital  delinquents. 
If,  then,  we  blame  in  some  measure  the  sentence  against 
Straiford,  it  is  not  for  his  sake,  but  for  that  of  the  laws  on 
which  he  trampled,  and  of  the  liberty  which  he  betrayed. 
He  died  justly  before  God  and  man,  though  we  may  deem 
the  precedent  dangerous,  and  the  better  course  of  a  magnan 
imous  lenity  unwisely  rejected ;  and  in  condemning  the  bill 
of  attainder  we  cannot  look  upon  it  as  a  crime. 

The  same  distrustful  temper,  blamable  in  nothing  but  its 

Act  against     excess,  drew  the  house  of  commons  into  a  meas- 

dSluient°f  ul*e  more   unconstitutional  than   the  attainder  of 

without  its      Strafford,   the  bill   enacting  that  they  should  not 

be  dissolved  without  their  own  consent.    "  Whether 

by  May,  p.  64,  who  generally  shows  a  found,  because  they  are  beasts  of  prey." 
good  deal  of  impartiality  at  this  period  Nor  was  this  a  mere  burst  of  passionate 
of  history.  The  violence  of  individuals,  declamation,  but  urged  as  a  serious  argu- 
especially  when  of  considerable  note,  de-  ment  for  taking  away  Strafford's  life 
serves  to  be  remarked  as  characteristic  of  without  sufficient  grounds  of  lasv  or  tes 
tae  temper  that  influenced  the  house,  and  timony.  llushworth,  Abr.  iv.  61.  Clar 
as  accounting  for  the  disgust  of  moderate  endon,  i.  407.  Strode  told  the  house  that, 
men.  "  Why  should  he  have  law  him-  as  they  had  charged  Strafford  with  high 
self  ?  "  said  St.  John,  in  arguing  the  bill  treason,  it  concerned  them  to  charge  as 
of  attainder  before  the  peers.''  who  would  conspirators  in  the  same  treason  all  who 
not  that  others  should  have  any?  We  had  before,  or  should  hereafter,  plead  in 
indeed  give  laws  to  hares  and  deer,  be-  that  cause.  Baillie,  252.  This  monstrous 
cause  they  are  beasts  of  chase  ;  but  we  proposal  seems  to  please  the  presbyterian 
give  none  to  wolves  and  foxes,  but  knock  bigot.  "If  this  hold,"  he  observes, 
them  on  the  head  wherever  they  are  "  Strafford's  counsel  will  be  rare." 


CIIA.  I.  —  1G40-42.     APPREHENSIONS   OF   THE   COMMONS.     H3 


or  not  this  had  been  previously  meditated  by  the  leaders 
is  uncertain ;  but  the  circumstances  under  which  it  was 
adopted  display  all  the  blind  precipitancy  of  fear.  A  scheme 
for  bringing  up  the  army  from  the  north  of  England  to  over 
awe  parliament  had  been  discoursed  of,  or  rather  in  a  great 
measure  concerted,  by  some  young  courtiers  and  military  men. 
The  imperfection  and  indefmiteness  of  the  evidence  obtained 
respecting  this  plot  increased,  as  often  happens,  the  appre 
hensions  of  the  commons.  Yet,  difficult  as  it  might  be  to  fix 
its  proper  character  between  a  loose  project  and  a  deliberate 
conspiracy,  this  at  least  was  hardly  to  be  denied,  that  the  king 
had  listened  to  and  approved  a  proposal  of  appealing  from 
the  representatives  of  his  people  to  a  military  force.1  Their 
greatest  danger  was  a  sudden  dissolution.  The  triennial  bill 
afforded,  indeed,  a  valuable  security  for  the  future.  Yet,  if 
the  present  parliament  had  been  broken  with  any  circum 
stances  of  violence,  it  might  justly  seem  very  hazardous  to 
confide  in  the  right  of  spontaneous  election  reserved  to  the 
people  by  that  statute,  which  the  crown  would  have  three 
years  to  defeat.  A  rapid  impulse,  rather  than  any  concerted 


i  Clarendon  and  Hume  of  course  treat 
this  as  a  very  trifling  affair,  exaggerated 
for  factious  purposes.  But  those  who  judge 
from  the  evidence  of  persons  unwilling  to 
accuse  themselves  or  the  king,  and  from 
the  natural  probabilities  of  the  case,  will 
suspect,  or  rather  be  wholly  convinced, 
that  it  had  gone  much  farther  than  these 
writers  admit.  See  the  accounts  of  this 
plot  in  Rush  worth  and  Nalson,  or  in  the 
Parliamentary  History,  also  what  is  said 
by  Montreuil  in  Kaumer,  p.  324.  The 
strongest  evidence,  however,  is  furnished 
by  Henrietta,  whose  relation  of  the  cir 
cumstances  to  Madame  de  Motteville 
proves  that  the  king  and  herself  had  the 
strongest  hopes  from  the  influence  of 
Goring  and  U'ilmot  over  the  army,  by 
means  of  which  they  aimed  at  saving 
Stratford's  life ;  though  the  jealousy  of 
those  ambitious  intriguers,  who  could 
not  both  enjoy  the  place  to  which  each 
aspired,  broke  the  whole  plot.  Mem.  de 
Motteville,  i.  253.  Compare  with  this 
passage  Percy's  letter  and  Goring's  depo 
sition  (Nalson,  ii.  286,  294),  tor  what  is 
said  of  the  king's  privity  by  men  who 
did  not  lose  his  favor  by  their  evidence. 
Mr.  Brodie  has  commented  in  a  long  note 
(iii.  189)  on  Clarendon's  apparent  mis 
representations  of  this  business.  But 
what  has  escaped  the  acuteness  of  this 
writer  is,  that  the  petition  to  the  king 
and  parliament,  drawn  up  for  the  army's 
VOL.  II.  8 


subscription,  and  asserted  by  Clarendon 
to  have  been  the  only  step  taken  by  those 
engaged  in  the  supposed  conspiracy 
(though  not.  as  Mr.  Brodie  too  rashly 
conjectures,  a  fabrication  of  his  own),  is 
mast  carelessly  referred  by  him  to  that 
period,  or  to  the  agency  of  U'ilinot  and 
his  coadjutors  —  having  been,  in  fact,  pre 
pared  about  the  July  following,  at  the 
instigation  of  Daniel  O'Neale  and  some 
others  of  the  royalist  party.  This  is 
manifest,  not  only  from  the  allusions  it 
contains  to  events  that  had  not  occurred 
in  the  months  of  March  and  April,  when 
the  plot  of  Wilmot  and  Goring  was  on 
foot,  especially  the  bill  for  triennial  par 
liaments,  but  from  evidence  given  before 
the  house  of  commons  in  October,  1641, 
and  which  Mr.  Brodie  has  published  in 
the  appendix  to  his  third  volume,  though, 
with  an  inadvertence  of  which  he  is  sel 
dom  guilty,  overlooking  its  date  and  pur 
port.  This,  however,  is  of  itself  sufficient 
to  display  the  inaccurate  chai-acter  of 
Clarendon's  History  ;  for  I  can  scarcely 
ascribe  the  present  incorrectness  to  de 
sign.  Tnere  are,  indeed,  so  many  mis 
takes  as  to  dates  and  other  matters  in 
Clarendon's  account  of  this  plot,  that, 
setting  aside  his  manifest  disposition  to 
suppress  the  truth,  we  can  place  not  the 
least  reliance  on  his  memory  as  to  those 
points  which  we  may  not  be  well  able  to 
bring  to  a  test. 


114  INNOVATIONS   IN   THE   CHURCH.  CHAP.  IX. 

resolution,  appears  to  have  dictated  this  hardy  encroachment 
on  the  prerogative.  The  bill  against  the  dissolution  of  the 
present  parliament  without  its  own  consent  was  resolved  in  a 
committee  on  the  fifth  of  May,  brought  in  the  next  day,  and 
sent  to  the  lords  on  the  seventh.  The  upper  house,  in  a  con 
ference  the  same  day,  urged  a  very  wise  and  constitutional 
amendment,  limiting  its  duration  to  the  term  of  two  years. 
But  the  commons  adhering  to  their  original  provisions,  the 
bill  was  passed  by  both  houses  on  the  eighth.1  Thus,  in  the 
space  of  three  days  from. the  first  suggestion,  an  alteration 
was  made  in  the  frame  of  our  polity  which  rendered  the 
house  of  commons  equally  independent  of  the  sovereign  and 
their  constituents  ;  and,  if  it  could  be  supposed  capable  of 
being  maintained  in  more  tranquil  times,  would,  in  the  theory 
at  least  of  speculative  politics,  have  gradually  converted  the 
government  into  something  like  a  Dutch  aristocracy.  The 
ostensible  pretext  was,  that  money  could  not  be  borrowed  on 
the  authority  of  resolutions  of  parliament  until  some  security 
was  furnished  to  the  creditors  that  those  whom  they  were  to 
trust  should  have  a  permanent  existence.  This  argument 
'would  have  gone  a  great  way,  and  was  capable  of  an  answer ; 
since  the  money  might  have  been  borrowed  on  the  authority  of 
the  whole  legislature.  But  the  chief  motive,  unquestionably, 
was  a  just  apprehension  of  the  king's  intention  to  overthrow 
the  parliament,  and  of  personal  danger  to  those  who  had 
stood  most  forward  from  his  resentment  after  a  dissolution. 
His  ready  acquiescence  in  this  bill,  far  more  dangerous  than 
any  of  those  at  which  he  demurred,  can  only  be  ascribed  to 
his  own  shame  and  the  queen's  consternation  at  the  discovery 
of  the  late  plot :  and  thus  we  trace  again  the  calamities  of 
Charles  to  their  two  great  sources  ;  his  want  of  judgment  in 
affairs,  and  of  good  faith  towards  his  people. 

The  parliament  had  met  with  as  ardent  and  just  an  indig- 

innovations    liation  against  ecclesiastical  as  temporal  grievances. 

meditated  in    The  tyranny,  the  folly,  and  rashness  of  Charles's 

rcl'     bishops  were  still  greater  than  his  own.      It  was 

l  Journals ;  Parliamentary  Hist.   784 ;  the  conference  with  the  lords.     But  in 

May,  67  ;  Clarendon.     According  to  Mrs.  sir   Ralph  Verney;s  manuscript  notes  I 

Hutchinson,  p.  97,  this   bill   originated  find  Mr.  Whitelock  mentioned  as  being 

with  Mr.  Pierpoiut.     If  we  should  draw  ordered  by  the  house  to  prepare  the  bill  ; 

any  inference  from  the  Journals,  sir  John  which  seems  to  imply  that  he  had  moved 

Colepepper  seems  to  have  been  the  most  it,  or  at  least  been  very  forward  in  it. 

prominent  of  its  supporters.     Mr.  Hyde  Yet  all  these  were  moderate  men. 
and  lord  Falkland  were  also  managers  of 


CHA.  I.  — 1040-42.      MODERATE  EPISCOPACY.  115 

evidently  an  indispensable  duty  to  reduce  the  overbearing 
ascendency  of  that  order  which  had  rendered  the  nation,  in 
regard  to  spiritual  dominion,  a  great  loser  by  the  Reforma 
tion.  They  had  been  so  blindly  infatuated  as,  even  in  the 
year  1G40,  amidst  all  the  perils  of  the  times,  to  fill  up  the 
measure  of  public  wrath  by  enacting  a  series  of  canons  in 
convocation.  These  enjoined,  or  at  least  recommended, 
some  of  the  modern  innovations,  which,  though  many  ex 
cellent  men  had  been  persecuted  for  want  of  compliance 
with  them,  had  not  got  the  sanction  of  authority.  They  im 
posed  an  oath  on  the  clergy,  commonly  called  the  "  et  cretera 
oath,"  binding  them  to  attempt  no  alteration  "  in  the  govern 
ment  of  the  church  by  bishops,  deans,  archdeacons,  &c." 
This  oath  was  by  the  same  authority  enjoined  to  such  of  the 
laity  as  held  ecclesiastical  offices.1  The  king,  however,  on 
the  petition  of  the  council  of  peers  at  York,  directed  it  not 
to  be  taken.  The  house  of  commons  rescinded  these  canons, 
with  some  degree  of  excess  on  the  other  side ;  not  only  de 
nying  the  right  of  convocation  to  bind  the  clergy,  which  had 
certainly  been  exercised  in  all  periods,  but  actually  impeach 
ing  the  bishops  for  a  high  misdemeanor  on  that  account.'2 
The  lords,  in  the  month  of  March,  appointed  a  committee 
of  ten  earls,  ten  bishops,  and  ten  barons,  to  report  upon  the 
innovations  lately  brought  into  the  church.  Of  this  commit 
tee  Williams  was  chairman.  But  the  spirit  which  now  pos 
sessed  the  commons  was  not  to  be  exorcised  by  the  sacrifice 
of  Laud  and  Wren,  or  even  by  such  inconsiderable  altera 
tions  as  the  moderate  bishops  were  ready  to  suggest.3 

There  had  always  existed  a  party,  though  by  no  means 
coextensive  with  that  bearing  the  general  name  of  puritan, 
who  retained  an  insuperable  aversion  to  the  whole  scheme 
of  episcopal  discipline,  as  inconsistent  with  the  ecclesiastical 
parity  they  believed  to  be  enjoined  by  the  apostles.  It  is 
not  easy  to  determine  what  proportion  these  bore  to  the  com 
munity.  They  were  certainly  at  the  opening  of  the  parlia 
ment  by  far  the  less  numerous,  though  an  active  and  increas 
ing  party.  Few  of  the  house  of  commons,  according  to 

1  Neal.  p.  632,  has  printed  these  can-     canons,  however,  were  carried,  nem.  con. 
ons  imperfectly.     They  may  be  found  at    Journals,  16th  Dec.  1640. 

length  in  Nalson,  i.  542.  ;;  Xeal.    709.      Laud    and   Wren   were 

2  Clarendon;    Par].    Hist.    678,    896;     both  impeached  Dec.  18;  the  latter  en- 
Neal,  647,  720.      These  votes  as  to  the    tirely  for  introducing  superstitions.    L'arl. 

Hist*.  861.     He  lay  in  the  Tower  till  1659. 


116 


ANTI-EPISCOPACY. 


CHAP.  IX. 


Clarendon  and  the  best  contemporary  writers,  looked  to  a 
destruction  of  the  existing  hierarchy.1  The  more  plausible 
scheme  wa*  one  which  had  the  sanction  of  Usher's  learned 
judgment,  and  which  Williams  was  said  to  favor,  for  what 
was  called  a  moderate  episcopacy  ;  wherein  the  bishop,  re 
duced  to  a  sort  of  president  of  his  college  of  presbyters,  and 
differing  from  them  only  in  rank,  not  in  order  (gradu,  non 
ordine),  should  act,  whether  in  ordination  or  jurisdiction,  by 
their  concurrence'.2  This  intermediate  form  of  church-gov 
ernment  would  probably  have  contented  the  popular  leaders 
of  the  commons,  except  two  or  three,  and  have  proved  ac 
ceptable  to  the  nation.  But  it  was  hardly  less  offensive  to 
the  Scottish  presbyterians,  intolerant  of  the  smallest  devia 
tion  from  their  own  model,  than  to  the  high-church  episcopa 
lians  ;  and  the  necessity  of  humoring  that  proud  and  preju 
diced  race  of  people,  who  began  already  to  show  that  an 
alteration  in  the  church  of  England  would  be  their  stipulated 
condition  for  any  assistance  they  might  afford  to  the  popular 
party,  led  the  majority  of  the  house  of  commons  to  give 
more  countenance  than  they  sincerely  intended  to  a  bill 
preferred  by  what  was  then  called  the  root-and-branch  party, 
for  the  entire  abolition  of  episcopacy.  This  party;  composed 
chiefly  of  presbyterians,  but  with  no  small  admixture  of  other 
sectaries,  predominated  in  the  city  of  London.  At  the  in 
stigation  of  the  Scots  commissioners,  a  petition  against 
episcopal  government,  with  15,000  signatures,  was  presented 
early  in  the  session  (Dec.  11,  1640),  and  received  so  favor 
ably  as  to  startle  those  who  bore  a  good  affection  to  the 
church.3  This  gave  rise  to  the  first  difference  that  was 

3  Piirl.  Hist.  673 ;  Clarendon,  i.  356  ; 
BailhVs  Letters,  218.  &c.  Though  san 
guine  as  to  the  progress  of  his  sect,  he 
admits  that  it  was  very  difficult  to  pluck 
up  episcopacy  by  the  roots ;  for  this  reason 
they  did  not  wish  the  house  to  give  a 
speedy  answer  to  the  city  petition :  p.  241. 
It  was  carried  by  36  or  37  voices,  he  says, 
to  refer  it  to  the  committee  of  religion  : 
p.  245.  No  division  appears  on  the  Jour 
nals. 

The  whole  influence  of  the  Scots  com 
missioners  was  directed  to  this  object ;  as 
not  only  Baillie's  Letters,  but  those  of 
Johnstone  of  Wariston  (Dalrymple's  Me 
morials  of  James  and  Charles  I.,  ii.  114, 
&c.),  show.  Besides  their  extreme  bigo 
try,  which  was  the  predominant  motive, 
they  had  a  better  apology  for  interfering 
with  church-government  in  England,  with 


1  Xeal  says  that  the  major  part  of  the 
parliamentarians  at  the  beginning  of  the 
war  were  for  moderated  episcopacy  (ii.  4), 
and  asserts   the  same  in  another  place 
(i.  715)  of  the  puritans,  in  contradiction  of 
ilapin.     'k  How  this  will  go,"  says  Baillie, 
in  April,  1641,  "  the  Lord  knows:  all  are 
for  the  creating  of  a  kind  of  presbytery, 
and  for  bringing  down  the  bishops,  in  all 
things  spiritual  and  temporal,  so  low  as 
can  be  with  any  subsistence  ;  but  their 
utter  abolition,  which  is  the  only  aim  of 
the  most  godly,  is  the  knot  of  the  ques 
tion."  i.  245. 

2  Xeal,   666,   672,    713 ;    Collier,    805  ; 
Baxter's  Life,  p.  62.     The  ministers'  peti 
tion,  as  it  was  called,  presented  Jan.  23, 
1641.  with  the  signatures  of  700  beneficed 
clergymen,  went  to  this  extent  of  refor 
mation.     Neal,  679. 


CHA.  I.  — 1040-42.       ANTI-EPISCOPAL   PARTY. 


117 


expressed  in  parliament :  Digby  speaking  warmly  against 
the  reference  of  this  petition  to  a  committee,  and  Falkland, 
though  strenuous  for  reducing  the  prelates'  authority,  showing 
much  reluctance  to  abolish  their  order.1  A  bill  was  how 
ever,  brought  in  by  sir  Edward  Dering,  an  honest  but  not 
very  enlightened  or  consistent  man,  for  the  utter  extirpation 
of  episcopacy,  and  its  second  reading  carried  on  a  division  by 
130  to  108.-  This,  no  doubt,  seems  to  show  the  anti-episco 
pal  party  to  have  been  stronger  than  Clarendon  admits. 
Yet  I  suspect  that  the  greater  part  of  those  who  voted  for 
it  did  not  intend  more  than  to  intimidate  the  bishops.  Peti 
tions,  very  numerously  signed,  for  the  maintenance  of  epis 
copal  government,  were  presented  from  several  counties;8 
nor  is  it,  I  think,  possible  to  doubt  that  the  nation  sought 
only  the  abridgment  of  that  coercive  jurisdiction  and  tem 
poral  power  by  which  the  bishops  had  forfeited  the  reverence 
due  to  their  function,  as  well  as  that  absolute  authority  over 
presbyters,  which  could  not  be  reconciled  to  the  customs  of 
the  primitive  church.4  This  was  the  object  both  of  the  act 
abolishing  the  high  commission,  which  by  the  largeness  of  its 


which  the  archbishop  had  furnished 
them  ;  it  was  the  only  .sure  means  of 
preserving  their  own. 

1  Uushworth  ;  Nalson. 

2  Parl.  Hist.  814,  822.  828.     Clarendon 
tells  us  that,  being  chairman  of  the  com 
mittee    to   whom    this    bill   was  referred, 
he  gave  it  so  much  interruption,  that  no 
progress  could    be  made  before    the   ad 
journment.     The  house   came,  however, 
to  a  resolution,  that  the  taking  away  the 
offices   of  archbishops,  bishops,  chancel 
lors,  and  commissaries  out  of  this  church 
and  kingdom,  should  be  one  clause  of  the 
bill.     .June  12.     Commons' Journals. 

3  Lord  Hertford   presented  one   to  the 
lords,    from     Somersetshire,    signed    by 
14,350  freeholders  and  inhabitants.     Nal 
son.  ii.   727.     The  Cheshire  petition,  for 
preserving    the     Common    Prayer,    was 
signed  by  near  10,000  hands.     Id.  758.    I 
have  a  collection  of  those  petitions  now 
before  me,  printed  in  1642,  from  thirteen 
English  and  five  Welsh  counties,  and  all 
very  numerously  signed.    In  almost  every 
instance,  I  observe,  they  thank  the  par 
liament  for  putting  a  check  to  innovations 
and  abuses,  while  they  deprecate  the  abo 
lition  of  episcopacy  and  the  liturgy.    Thus 
it  seems  that  the  presbyterians  were  very 
far  from  having  the  nation  on  their  side. 
The  following  extract  from  the  Somerset 
shire   petition  is  a  good  sample   of  the 
general  tone  :   l '  For  the  present  govern 


ment  of  the  church  we  are  most  thankful 
to  God,  believing  it  in  our  hearts  to  be 
the  most  pious  and  the  wisest  that  any 
people  or  kingdom  upon  earth  hath  been 
withal  since  the  apostles'  days  :  though 
we  may  not  deny  but,  through  the  frailty 
of  men  and  corruption  of  times,  some 
things  of  ill  consequence,  and  other  need 
less,  are  stolen  or  thrust  into  it :  which 
we  heartily  wish  may  be  reformed,  and 
the  church  restored  to  its  former  purity. 
And,  to  the  end  it  may  be  the  better 
preserved  from  present  and  future  inno 
vation,  we  wish  the  wittingly  and  mali 
ciously  guilty,  of  what  condition  soever 
they  be,  whether  bishops  or  inferior 
clergy,  may  receive  condign  punishment. 
But,  for  the  miscarriage  of  governors,  to 
destroy  the  government,  we  trust  it  shall 
never  enter  into  the  hearts  of  this  wise 
and  honorable  assembly. :' 

4  The  house  came  to  a  vote  on  July 
17.  according  to  Whitelock,  p.  4').  in 
favor  of  Usher's  scheme,  that  each 
county  should  be  a  diocese,  and  that  there 
should  be  a  governing  college  or  pres 
bytery,  consisting  of  twelve,  under  the 
presidency  of  a  bishop  :  sir  E.  Dering 
spoke  in  favor  of  this,  though  his  own 
bill  went  much  further.  Nalson.  ii.  294  ; 
Neal,  703.  I  cannot  find  the  vote  in  the 
Journals  ;  it  passed,  therefore,  I  suppose 
in  the  committee,  and  was  not  reported 
to  the  house. 


1 1 8  BISHOPS   EXCLUDED   PARLIAMENT.         CHAP.  IX. 

expressions  seemed  to  take  away  all  coercive  jurisdiction 
from  the  ecclesiastical  courts,  and  of  that  for  depriving  the 
bishops  of  their  suffrages  among  the  peers  ;  which,  after 
being  once  rejected  by  a  large  majority  of  the  lords,  in 
June,  1641,  passed  into  a  law  in  the  month  of  February 
following,  and  was  the  latest  concession  that  the  king  made 
before  his  final  appeal  to  arms.1 

This  was  hardly,  perhaps,  a  greater  alteration  of  the  es 
tablished  constitution  than  had  resulted  from  the  suppression 
of  the  monasteries  under  Henry  ;  when,  by  the  fall  of  the 
mitred  abbots,  the  secular  peers  acquired  a  preponderance 
in  number  over  the  spiritual,  which  they  had  not  previously 
enjoyed.  It  was  supported  by  several  persons,  especially 
lord  Falkland,  by  no  means  inclined  to  subvert  the  episcopal 
discipline  ;  whether  from  a  hope  to  compromise  better  with 
the  opposite  party  by  this  concession,  or  from  a  sincere  belief 
that  the  bishops  might  be  kept  better  to  the  duties  of  their 
function  by  excluding  them  from  civil  power.  Considered 
generally,  it  may  be  reckoned  a  doubtful  question  in  the  the 
ory  of  our  government  whether  the  mixture  of  this  ecclesias 
tical  aristocracy  with  the  house  of  lords  is  advantageous  or 
otherwise  to  the  public  interests,  or  to  those  of  religion. 

i  Parl.  Hist.  774,  794,  817,  910,  1087.  as  having  been  misled  by  Hampden  to 

The  lords  had  previously  come  to  resolu-  take  an  unexpected  part  in  favor  of  the 

tions  that  bishops  should  sit  in  the  house  first  bill  for  excluding  the  bishops  from 

of  lords,  but  not  in  the  privy  council,  parliament.  "The  house  was  so  inar- 

nor  be  in  any  commission  of  the  peace,  vellously  delighted  to  see  the  two  insep- 

Id.  814.  arable  friends  divided  in  so  important  a 

The  king  was  very  unwilling  to  give  point  that  they  could  not  contain  from  a 

his  consent  to  the  bill  excluding  the  kind  of  rejoicing ;  and  the  more  because 

bishops  from  parliament,  and  was,  of  they  saw  Mr.  Hyde  was  much  surprised 

course,  dissuaded  by  Hyde  from  doing  with  the  contradiction,  as  in  truth  he 

so.  He  was  then  at  Newmarket,  on  his  was,  having  never  discovered  the  least 

way  to  the  north,  and  had  nothing  but  inclination  in  the  other  towards  such  a 

war  in  his  head.  The  queen,  however,  compliance:"'  i.  413.  There  is,  however, 

and  sir  John  Colepepper,  prevailed  on  an  earlier  speech  of  Falkland  in  print 

him  to  consent.  Clarendon,  History,  ii.  against  the  London  petition  ;  wherein, 

247  (1826) :  Life,  51.  The  queen  could  while  objecting  to  the  abolition  of  the 

not  be  expected  to  have  much  tenderness  order,  he  intimates  his  willingness  to 

for  a  protestant  episcopacy  ;  and  it  is  to  take  away  their  votes  in  parliament,  with 

be  said  in  favor  of  Colepepper's  advice,  all  other  temporal  authority.  Speeches 

who  was  pretty  indifferent  in  ecclesias-  of  the  Happy  Parliament,  p.  188  (pub- 

tical  matters,  that  the  bishops  had  ren-  lished  in  1641).  Johnstone  of  \Variston 

dered  themselves  odious  to  many  of  those  says  there  were  but  four  or  five  votes 

who  wished  well  to  the  royal  cause.  See  against  taking  away  civil  places  and  seats 

the  very  remarkable  conversation  of  Hyde  in  parliament  from  the  bishops.  Dal- 

with  sir  Edward  Verney,  who  was  killed  rymple's  Memorials,  ii.  116.  J5ut  in  the 

at  the  battle  of  Edgehill,  where  the  latter  Journals  of  the  commons.  10th  March, 

declares  his  reluctance  to  fight  for  the  1640-41,  it  is  said  to  be  resolved,  after  a 

bishops,  whose  quarrel  he  took  it  to  be,  long  and  mature  debate,  that  the  legis- 

thongh  bound  by  gratitude  not  to  desert  lative  power  of  bishops  is  a  hinderance  to 

the  king.  Clarendon's  Life,  p. *68.  their  function. 

This   author  represents  lord  Falkland 


CHA.  I. —1640-42.      PURITAN  DEVASTATIONS.  119 

Their  great  revenues,  and  the  precedence  allotted  them, 
seem  naturally  to  place  them  on  this  level  ;  and  the  general 
property  of  the  clergy,  less  protected  than  that  of  other  classes 
against  the  cupidity  of  an  administration  or  a  faction,  may 
perhaps  require  this  peculiar  security.  In  fact,  the  disposi 
tion  of  the  English  to  honor  the  ministers  of  the  church,  as 
well  as  to  respect  the  ancient  institutions  of  their  country, 
has  usually  been  so  powerful,  that  the  question  would  hardly 
have  been  esteemed  dubious  if  the  bishops  themselves  (I 
speak  of  course  with  such  limitations  as  the  nature  of  the  case 
requires)  had  been  at  all  times  sufficiently  studious  to  main 
tain  a  character  of  political  independence,  or  even  to  conceal 
a  spirit  of  servility,  which  the  pernicious  usage  of  continual 
translations  from  one  see  to  another,  borrowed,  like  many 
other  parts  of  our  ecclesiastical  law,  from  the  most  corrupt 
period  of  the  church  of  Rome,  has  had  so  manifest  a  ten 
dency  to  engender.1 

This  spirit  of  ecclesiastical,  rather  than  civil,  democracy, 
was  the  first  sign  of  the  approaching  storm  that  alarmed  the 
Hertfords  and  Southampton,  the  Hydes  and  Falklands. 
Attached  to  the  venerable  church  of  the  English  reformation, 
they  were  loath  to  see  the  rashness  of  some  prelates  avenged 
by  her  subversion,  or  a  few  recent  innovations  repressed  by 
incomparably  more  essential  changes.  Full  of  regard  for 
established  law,  and  disliking  the  puritan  bitterness,  aggra 
vated  as  it  was  by  long  persecution,  they  revolted  from  the 
indecent  devastation  committed  in  churches  by  the  populace, 
and  from  the  insults  which  now  fell  on  the  conforming  min 
isters.  The  lords  early  distinguished  their  temper  as  to  those 
points  by  an  order  on  the  IGth  of  January  for  the  perform 
ance  of  divine  service  according  to  law,  in  consequence  of 
the  tumults  that  had  been  caused  by  the  heated  puritans 
under  pretence  of  abolishing  innovations.  Little  regard  was 
shown  to  this  order ; 2  but  it  does  not  appear  that  the  com 
mons  went  further  on  the  opposite  side  than  to  direct  some 
ceremonial  novelties  to  be  discontinued,  and  to  empower  one 
of  their  members,  sir  Robert  Harley,  to  take  away  all  pic- 

1  [1827.] 

2  "  The   higher  house,"   says   Baillie,  does  not  discourage  any  one."     P.  287- 
u  have  made  an  order,  which  was  read  in  Some  rioters,  however,  who  had  pulled 
the  churches,  that  none  presume  of  their  down    rails   about    the   altar,    £c.,   were 
own   head   to  alter  any  customs  estab-  committed  by  order  of  the  lords  in  June. 
lished  by  law  :   this  procured  ordinance  Nalson,  ii.  275. 


120  SCHISM  IN   CONSTITUTIONAL  PARTY.       CHAP.  IX. 

tures,  crosses,  and  superstitious  figures  within  churches  or 
without.1  But  this  order,  like  many  of  their  other  acts,  was 
a  manifest  encroachment  on  the  executive  power  of  the 
crown.2 

It  seems  to  have  been  about  the  time  of  the  summer  recess, 
during  the  king's  absence  in  Scotland,  that  the  apprehension 
of  changes  in  church  and  state,  far  beyond  what  had  been 
Schism  in  dreamed  of  at  the  opening  of  parliament,  led  to  a 
the  constitu-  final  schism  in  the  constitutional  party.3  Charles, 
by  abandoning  his  former  advisers,  and  yielding, 
with  just  as  much  reluctance  as  displayed  the  value  of  the 
concession,  to  a  series  of  laws  that  abridged  his  prerogative, 
had  recovered  a  good  deal  of  the  affection  and  confidence 
of  some,  and  gained  from  others  that  sympethy  which  is  sel 
dom  withheld  from  undeserving  princes  in  their  humiliation. 
Though  the  ill-timed  death  of  the  carl  of  Bedford  in  May 
had  partly  disappointed  an  intended  arrangement  for  bring 
ing  the  popular  leaders  into  office,  yet  the  appointments  of 
Essex,  Holland,  Say,  and  St.  John  from  that  party,  were  ap 
parently  pledges  of  the  king's  willingness  to  select  his  advisers 
from  their  ranks ;  whatever  cause  there  might  be  to  suspect 
that  their  real  influence  over  him  would  be  too  inconsid 
erable.4  Those  who  were  still  excluded,  and  who  distrusted 

1  Parl.  Hist.  868.      By  the  hands  of     ship  of  God  and   peace  of  the   realm." 
this   zealous    knight   fell    the    beautiful     See  Xalson,  ii.  484.  • 

crosses  at  Charing  and  Cheap,  to  the  3  May,  p.  75.  See  this  passage,  which 
lasting  regret  of  all  faithful  lovers  of  is  very  judicious.  The  disunion,  how- 
antiquities  and  architecture.  ever,  had  in  some  measure  begun  nofc 

2  Parl.    Hist.   907.      Commons'   Jour-  long  after   the  meeting   of  parliament  ; 
nals.  Sept.   1,   1(541.      It  was   carried   at  the  court  wanted,  in  December  1640,  to 
the  time,  on  a  division,  by  55  to  37.  that  have  given  the  treasurer's  staff  to  Hert- 
the  committee  "  should  propound  an  ad-  ford,  whose  brother  was  created  a  peer 
dition  to  this   order  for   preventing  all  by  the  title  of  Lord  Seymour.     Bedford 
contempt  and  abuse  of  the  Book  of  Com-  was  the  favorite  with  the  commons  for 
mon  Prayer  and  all  tumultuous  disorders  the  same  office,  and  would  doubtless  have 
that  might  arise   in  the   church  there-  been  a  fitter  man  at  the  time,  notwith- 
upon."     This  is  a  proof  that  the  church  standing   the    other's    eminent   virtues, 
party  were   sometimes  victorious  in  the  Sidney  Letters,    ii.    665,   666.      See  also 
house.      But   they  did   not  long   retain  what  Baillie  says  of  the  introduction  of 
this   casual  advantage.      For,  the   lords  seven  lords,  "all  commonwealth's  men," 
having  sent  down  a  copy  of  their  order  into    the  council,  though,  as   generally 
of  16th   January  above    mentioned,    re-  happens,   he  is    soon    discontented    with 
questing     the     commons'    concurrence,  some  of  them.     P.  246,  247.     There  was 
they  resolved,  Sept.  9.  "  that  the  house  even  some  jealousy  of  Say,  as  favoring 
do  not  consent  to  this  order;    it  being  Strafford. 

thought   unreasonable   at    this   time   to  *  Whitelock.   p.  46.      Bedford  was   to 

urge   the   severe   execution   of  the  said  have    been    lord    treasurer,    with    Pym, 

laws."     They  contented  themselves  with  whom  he  had  brought  into   parliament 

"expecting   that   the   commons   of  this  for  Tavistock.  as  his  chancellor  of  the 

realm  do,  in  the  mean  time,  quietly  at-  exchequer  ;    Hollis    secretary    of    state. 

tend  the  reformation  intended,  without  Hampden   is  said,  but   not   perhaps   on 

any  tumultuous  disturbance  of  the  wor-  good  authority,  to  have  sought  the  office 


CIIA.  I.  —  1640-42.    REMONSTRANCE  OF  NOVEMBER,  1641.        121 

the  king's  intentions  as  well  towards  themselves  as  the  pub 
lic  cause,  of  whom  Pym  and  Ilampden,  with  the  assistance 
of  St.  John,  though  actually  solicitor-general,  were  the  chief, 
found  no  better  means  of  keeping  alive  the  animosity  that 
was  beginning  to  subside,  than  by  framing  the  Remonstrance 
on  the  state  of  the  kingdom,  presented  to  the  king  in  Novem 
ber,  1G-41.  This  being  a  recapitulation  of  all  the  grievances 
and  rnisgovernment  that  had  existed  since  his  ac 
cession,  which  his  acquiescence  in  so  many  mea's-  Jtiin°ce"of 


ures  of  redress  ought,  according  to  the  common 
courtesy  due  to  sovereigns,  to  have  cancelled,  was 
hardly  capable  of  answering  any  other  purpose  than  that  of 
reanimating  discontents  almost  appeased,  and  guarding  the 
people  against  the  confidence  they  were  beginning  to  place 
in  the  king's  sincerity.  The  promoters  of  it  might  also  hope, 
from  Charles's  proud  and  hasty  temper,  that  he  would  reply 
in  such  a  tone  as  would  more  exasperate  the  commons.  But 
he  had  begun  to  use  the  advice  of  judicious  men,  Falkland, 
Hyde,  and  Colepepper,  and  reined  in  his  natural  violence  so 
as  to  give  his  enemies  no  advantage  over  him. 

The  jealousy  which  nations  ought  never  to  lay  aside  was 
especially  required  towards  Charles,  whose  love  of  arbitrary 
dominion  was  much  better  proved  than  his  sincerity  in 
relinquishing  it.  But  if  he  were  intended  to  reign  at  all, 
and  to  reign  with  any  portion  either  of  the  prerogatives 
of  an  English  king,  or  the  respect  claimed  by  every  sov 
ereign,  the  Remonstrance  of  the  commons  could  but  prolong 
an  irritation  incompatible  with  public  tranquillity.  It  admits, 
indeed,  of  no  question,  that  the  schemes  of  Pym,  Ilampden, 
and  St.  John,  already  tended  to  restrain  the  king's  personal 
exercise  of  any  effective  power,  from  a  sincere  persuasion 

of   governor    to    the    prince   of   Wales  ;  acted,  as  he  thought,  very  ungratefully, 

which  Hume,  not  very  candidly,  brings  Say  being  a  known  enemy  to  episcopacy, 

as   a   proof  of  his   ambition.     It   seems  and  Essex,  though  of  the  highest  honor, 

probable   that,   if  Charles    had   at    that  not   being  of  a  capacity  to  retain  much 

time  (May  1641)  carried  these  plans  into  influence  over   the  leaders  of  the  other 

execution,   and   ceased  to    listen    to    the  house.     Clarendon   insinuates  that,  even 

queen,  or  to  those  persons  about  his  bed-  as    late   as    March,  1642,    the    principal 

chamber  who  were    perpetually   leading  patriots,  with  a    few    exceptions,    would 

him  astray,  he  would  have  escaped  the  have  been  content    with    coining   them- 

exorbitant    demands    which    were    after-  selves  into  power  under  the  king,  and  on 

wards  made  upon  him,  and  even  saved  this  condition  would  have  left  his  remain- 

his  favorite  episcopacy.      But,  after  the  ing  prerogative  untouched  (ii.  826).    But 

death  of   the  earl  of  Bedford,  who  had  it  seems   more   probable   that,    after  the 

not  been  hostile  to  the  church,  there  was  accusation     of    the    five     members,    no 

no  man  of  rank  in  that  party  whom  he  measure  of  this  kind  would    have  been 

liked  to  trust  ;  Northumberland  having  of  any  service  to  Charles. 


THE   REMONSTRANCE   CARRIED. 


CHAP.  IX. 


that  no  confidence  could  ever  be  placed  in  him,  though  not  to 
abolish  the  monarchy,  or  probably  to  abridge  in  the  same 
degree  the  rights  of  his  successor.  Their  Remonstance  was 
put  forward  to  stem  the  returning  tide  of  loyalty,  which  not 
only  threatened  to  obstruct  the  further  progress  of  their 
endeavors,  but,  as  they  would  allege,  might,  by  gaining 
strength,  wash  away  some  at  least  of  the  bulwarks  that  had 
been  so  recently  constructed  for  the  preservation  of  liberty. 
It  was  carried  in  a  full  house  by  the  small  majority  of  150 
to  143.1  So  much  was  it  deemed  a  trial  of  strength,  that 
Cromwell  declared  after  the  division  that,  had  the  question 
been  lost,  he  would  have  sold  his  estate,  and  retired  to 
America. 

It  mny  be  thought  rather  surprising  that,  with  a  house  of 
commons  so  nearly  balanced  as  they  appear  on  this  vote,  the 


1  Commons'  Journals.  22 J  November. 
On  a  second  division  the  same  night, 
•whether  the  Remonstrance  should  be 
printed,  the  popular  side  lost  it  bv  124 
to  101.  But  on  the  loth  December  the 
printing  was  carried  by  135  to  83.  Sev 
eral  divisions  on  important  subjects 
about  this  time  show  that  the  royalist 
minority  was  very  formidable.  But  the 
attendance,  especially  on  that  side,  seems 
to  have  been  irregular;  and,  in  general, 
when  we  consider  the  immense  impor 
tance  of  these  debates,  we  are  surprised 
to  find  the  house  so  deficient  in  numbers 
as  many  divisions  show  it  to  have  been. 
Clarendon  frequently  complains  of  the 
supineness  of  his  party;  a  fault  invari 
ably  imputed  to  their  friends  by  the  zeal 
ous  supporters  of  established  authority, 
who  forget  that  sluggish,  lukewarm,  arid 
thoughtless  tempers  must  always  exist, 
and  that  such  will  naturally  belong  to 
their  side.  I  find  in  the  short  pencil 
notes  taken  by  sir  Ralph  Verney,  with  a 
copy  of  which  I  have  been  favored  by 
Mr.  Sergeant  D'Oyly,  the  following  entry 
on  the  7th  of  August,  before  the  king's 
journey  to  Scotland :  —  "A  remonstrance 
to  be  made  how  we  found  the  kingdom 
and  the  church,  and  how  the  state  of  it 
now  stands/'  This  is  not  adverted  to  in 
Nalsou  nor  in  the  journals  at  this  time. 
But  Clarendon  says,  in  a  suppressed  pas 
sage,  vol.  ii.  Append.  591,  that,  "  at  the 
beginning  of  the  parliament,  or  shortly 
after,  when  all  men  were  inflamed  with 
the  pressures  and  illegalities  which  had 
been  exercised  upon  them,  a  committee 
was  appointed  to  prepare  a  remonstrance 
of  the  state  of  the  kingdom,  to  be  pre 
sented  to  his  majesty,  in  which  the  several 


grievances  might  be  recited  ;  which  com 
mittee  had  never  brought  any  report  to 
the  house;  most  men  conceiving,  and 
very  reasonably,  that  the  quick  and  ef 
fectual  progress  his  majesty  made  for  the 
reparation  of  those  grievances,  and  pre 
vention  of  the  like  for  the  future,  had 
rendered  that  work  needless.  But  as 
soon  as  the  intelligence  came  of  his 
majesty  being  on  his  way  from  Scot 
land  towards  London,  that  committee  was, 
with  great  earnestness  and  importunity, 
called  upon  to  bring  in  the  draft  of  such 
remonstrance/' &c.  I  find  a  slight  no 
tice  of  this  origin  of  the  Remonstrance  in 
the  Journals,  Nov.  17.  1640. 

In  another  place,  also  suppressed  in 
the  common  editions,  Clarendon  says,  — 
"This  debate  held  many  hours  in  which 
the  framers  and  contrivers  of  the  decla 
ration  said  very  little,  or  answered  any 
reasons  that  were  alleged  to  the  con 
trary  ;  the  only  end  of  passing  it,  which 
was  to  incline  the  people  to  sedition, 
being  a  reason  not  to  be  given  ;  but 
called  still  for  the  question,  presuming 
their  number,  if  not  their  reason,  would 
serve  to  carry  it ;  and  after  two  in  the 
morning  (for  so  long  the  debate  contin 
ued,  if  that  can  be  called  a  debate  when 
those  only  of  one  opinion  argued).  &c..  it 
was  put  to  the  question."  What  a 
strange  memory  this  author  had !  I  have 
now  before  me  sir  Ralph  Verney's  MS. 
note  of  the  debate,  whence  it  appears 
that  Pym,  Hampden,  Hollis,  Glyn,  and 
Maynard  spoke  in  favor  of  the  Remon 
strance  ;  nay,  as  far  as  these  brief  mem 
oranda  go,  Hyde  himself  seems  not  to 
have  warmly  opposed  it. 


CIIA.  I.  — 1040-42.      DOUBTS  OF  THE  KING'S  SINCERITY.       123 

king  should  have  new  demands  that  annihilated  his  authority 
made  upon  him,  and  have  found  a  greater  ma-  guspicions 
jority  than  had  voted  the  Remonstrance  ready  to  of  ticking's 
oppose  him  by  arms  ;  especially  as  that  paper  &n 
contained  little  but  what  was  true,  and  might  rather  be 
censured  as  an  ill-timed  provocation  than  an  encroachment 
on  the  constitutional  prerogative.  But  there  were  circum 
stances,  both  of  infelicity  and  misconduct,  which  aggravated 
that  distrust  whereon  every  measure  hostile  to  him  was 
grounded.  His  imprudent  connivance  at  popery,  and  the 
far  more  reprehensible  encouragement  given  to  it  by  his 
court,  had  sunk  deep  in  the  hearts  of  his  people.  His  ill- 
wishers  knew  how  to  irritate  the  characteristic  sensibility 
of  the  English  on  this  topic.  The  queen,  unpopular  on  the 
score  of  her  imputed  arbitrary  counsels,  was  odious  as  a 
maintainer  of  idolatry.1  The  lenity  shown  to  convicted 
popish  priests,  who,  though  liable  to  capital  punishment,  had 
been  suffered  to  escape  with  sometimes  a  very  short  impris 
onment,  was  naturally  (according  to  the  maxims  of  those 
times)  treated  as  a  grievance  by  the  commons,  who  peti 
tioned  for  the  execution  of  one  Goodman  and  others  in 
similar  circumstances,  perhaps  in  the  hope  that  the  king 
would  attempt  to  shelter  them.  But  he  dexterously  left  it 
to  the  house  whether  they  should  die  or  not ;  and  none  of 
them  actually  suffered.2  Rumors  of  pretended  conspiracies 
by  the  catholics  were  perpetually  in  circulation,  and  rather 
unworthily  encouraged  by  the  chiefs  of  the  commons.  More 
substantial  motives  for  alarm  appeared  to  arise  from  the 

i  The  letters  of  sir  Edward  Nicholas,  at  Westminster  the  appellation  of  a  par- 
published  as  a  supplement   to  Evelyn's  liament :  p.  90. 

Diary,  show  how  generally  the  apprehen-  2  The  king's  speech  about  Goodman, 
sions  of  popish  influence  were  entertained.  Baillie  tells  us,  gave  great  satisfaction  to 
It  is  well  for  superficial  pretenders  to  lay  all;  "with  much  humming  was  it  re- 
these  on  calumny  and  misrepresentation ;  ceived."  P.  240.  Goodman  petitioned 
but  such  as  have  read  our  historical  docu-  the  house  that  he  might  be  executed 
merits  know  that  the  royalists  were  al-  rather  than  become  the  occasion  of  differ- 
most  as  jealous  of  the  king  in  this  respect  ences  between  the  king  and  parliament, 
as  the  puritans.  See  what  Nicholas  says  This  was  earlier  in  time,  and  at  least 
to  the  king  himself,  pp.22,  25,  29.  Indeed  equal  in  generosity,  to  lord  Strafford  s 
he  gives  several  hints  to  a  discerning  famous  letter;  or  perhaps  rather  mor-3 
reader  that  he  was  not  satisfied  with  the  so.  since,  though  it  turned  out  otherwise, 
soundness  of  the  king's  intentions,  espe-  he  had  greater  reason  to  expect  that  he 
cially  as  to  O'Neale's  tampering  with  the  should  be  taken  at  his  word.  It  is  re- 
army  :  p.  77.  Nicholas,  however,  became  markable  that  the  king  says,  in  his  an- 
afterwards  a  very  decided  supporter  of  swer  to  the  commons,  that  no  priest  had 
the  royal  cause  ;  and  in  the  council  at  been  executed  merely"  for  religion,  either 
Oxford,  just  before  the  treaty  of  Uxbridge,  by  his  father  or  Elizabeth ;  which,  though 
•was  the  only  one  who  voted  according  to  well  meant,  was  quite  untrue.  Parl. 
the  king's  wish,  not  to  give  the  members  Hist.  712;  Butler,  ii.  5. 


124  IRISH  REBELLION.  CHAP.  IX. 

obscure  transaction  in  Scotland,  commonly  called  the  Inci 
dent,  which  looked  so  like  a  concerted  design  against  the 
two  great  leaders  of  the  constitutional  party,  Hamilton  and 
Argyle,  that  it  was  not  unnatural  to  anticipate  something 
similar  in  England.1  In  the  midst  of  these  apprehensions, 
as  if  to  justify  every  suspicion  and  every  severity,  burst  out 
the  Irish  rebellion  with  its  attendant  massacre.  Though 
nothing  could  be  more  unlikely  in  itself,  or  less  supported  by 
proof,  than  the  king's  connivance  at  this  calamity,  from 
which  every  man  of  common  understanding  could  only  ex 
pect,  what  actually  resulted  from  it,  a  terrible  aggravation  of 
his  difficulties,  yet,  with  that  distrustful  temper  of  the  Eng 
lish,  and  their  jealous  dread  of  popery,  he  was  never  able  to 
conquer  their  suspicions  that  he  had  either  instigated  the 
rebellion,  or  was  very  little  solicitous  to  suppress  it ;  suspi 
cions,  indeed,  to  which,  however  ungrounded  at  this  particular 
period,  some  circumstances  that  took  place  afterwards  gave 
an  apparent  confirmation.2 

It  was,  perhaps,  hardly  practicable  for  the  king,  had  he 
given  less  real  excuse  for  it  than  he  did,  to  lull  that  dis 
quietude  which  so  many  causes  operated  to  excite.  The 
most  circumspect  discretion  of  a  prince  in  such  a  difficult 
posture  cannot  restrain  the  rashness  of  eager  adherents,  or 
silence  the  murmurs  of  a  discontented  court.  Those  nearest 
Charles's  person,  and  who  always  possessed  too  much  of  his 
confidence,  were  notoriously  and  naturally  averse  to  the 
recent  changes.  Their  threatening  but  idle  speeches,  and 
impotent  denunciations  of  resentment,  conveyed  with  malig 
nant  exaggeration  among  the  populace,  provoked  those  tu- 

1  See  what  Clarendon  says  of  the  effect  have  been  the  medium  between  the  par- 
produced  at  Westminster  by  the  Tnci-  liamentary  chiefs  and  the  French  court, 
dent,  in  one  of  the  suppressed  passages,  signified  how  much  this  would  be  dreaded 
Vol.  ii.  Append,  p.  575.  edit.  1826.  by  the  former  ;  and  Kichelieu  took  care 

-  Nalson,  ii.  788.  792.  804;  Clarendon,  to  keep  her  away,  of  which  she  bitterly 
ii.  84.  The  queen's  behavior  had  been  complained.  This  was  in  February.  Her 
extraordinarily  imprudent  from  the  very  majesty's  letter,  which  M.  Mazure  has 
beginning.  So  early  as  Feb.  17,  1641,  been  malicious  enough  to  print  verbatim, 
the  French  ambassador  writes  word.  —  is  a  curious  specimen  of  orthography. 
"  La  reine  d'Angleterre  dit  publiquement  Id.  p.  416.  Her  own  party  were  equally 
qu'il  y  a  une  treve  arrestee  pour  trois  ans  averse  to  this  step,  which  was  chiefly  the 
entre  la  France  et  I'Espagne,  et  que  ces  effect  of  cowardice  ;  for  Henrietta  was  by 
deux  couronnes  vont  unir  leurs  forces  no  means  the  high-spirited  woman  that 
pour  la  defendre  et  pour  venger  les  cath-  some  have  fancied.  It  is  well  known 
cliques. ;'  Mazure,  Hist,  de  la  Kevol.  en  that  a  few  months  afterwards  she  pre- 
1688,  ii.  419.  She  was  very  desirous  to  tended  to  require  the  waters  of  Spa  for 
go  to  France,  doubtless  to  interest  her  her  health  ;  but  was  induced  to  give  up 
brother  and  the  queen  in  the  cause  of  her  journey, 
royalty.  Lord  Holland,  who  seems  to 


CHA.  I. —  1040-42.       TUMULTUOUS   ASSEMBLAGES. 


125 


multuons  assemblages  which  afforded  tlie  kino;  no  bad  pre 
text  for  withdrawing  himself  from  a  capital  where  his 
personal  dignity  wa>  so  little  respected.1  It  is  impossible 
however  to  deny  that  he  gave  by  his  own  conduct  no  trifling 
reasons  for  suspicion,  and  last  of  all  by  the  appointment  of 
Lnnsford  to  the  government  of  the  Tower  ;  a  choice  for 
which,  a>;  it  would  never  have  been  made  from  good  motive;, 
it  was  natural  to  seek  the  worst.  But  the  single  false  step  2 


i  Clarendon,  ii.  81.  This  writer  in 
timates  that  the  Tower  was  looked  upon 
by  the  court  as  a  bridle  upon  the  city. 

-  Nalson,  ii.  810.  and  other  writers, 
ascribe  this  accusation  of  lord  Kinibolton 
in  the  peers,  and  of  the  five  members,  as 
they  are  commonly  called,  Pym.  Hollis. 
Hampdcn,  Ilaslerig,  and  Strode,  to  se 
cret  information  obtained  by  the  king  in 
Scotland  of  their  former  intrigues  with 
that  nation.  This  is  rendered  in  some 
measure  probable  by  a  part  of  the  written 
charge  preferred  by  the  attorney-general 
before  the  house  of  lords,  and  by  expres 
sions  that  fell  from  the  king;  such  as 
u  it  was  a  treason  which  they  should  all 
thank  him  for  discovering."  Clarendon, 
however,  hardly  hints  at  this  ;  and  gives 
at  least  a  hasty  reader  to  understand 
that  the  accusation  was  solely  grounded 
on  their  parliamentary  conduct.  Proba 
bly  he  was  aware  that  the  act  of  oblivion 
passed  last  year  afforded  a  sufficient  legal 
defence  to  the  charge  of  corresponding 
•with  the  Scots  in  1640.  In  my  judg 
ment  they  had  an  abundant  justification 
in  the  eyes  of  their  country  for  intrigues 
which,  though,  legally  treasonable,  had 
been  the  means  of  overthrowing  despotic 
power.  The  king  and  courtiers  had  been 
elated  by  the  applause  he  received  when 
he  went  into  the  city  to  dine  with  the 
lord  mayor  on  his  return  from  Scotland ; 
and  Madame  de  Motteville  says  plainly 
that  he  determined  to  avail  himself  of  it 
in  order  to  seize  the  leaders  in  parlia 
ment,  (i.  264.) 

Nothing  could  be  more  irregular  than 
the  mode  of  Charles's  proceedings  in  this 
case.  lie  sent  a  message  by  the  ser- 
geant-at-arms  to  require  of  the  speaker 
that  five  members  should  be  given  up  to 
him  on  a  charge  of  high  treason  ;  no 
magistrate's  or  councillor's  warrant  ap 
peared  ;  it  was  the  king  acting  singly, 
without  the  intervention  of  the  law.  It 
is  idle  to  allege,  like  Clarendon,  that 
privilege  of  parliament  does  not  extend 
to  treason  ;  the  breach  of  privilege,  and 
of  all  constitutional  law,  was  in  the  mode 
of  proceeding.  In  fact,  the  king  was 
guided  by  bad  private  advice,  and  cared 
not  to  let  any  of  bis  privy  council  know 


his  intentions  lest  he  should  encounter 
opposition. 

The  following  account  of  the  king's 
coming  to  the  house  on  this  occasion  is 
copied  from  the  pencil-notes  of  sir  It. 
Verne v.  It  has  been  already  printed  by 
Mr.  llatsell  (Precedents,  iv.  106),  but 
with  no  great  correctness.  What  sir  It. 
V.  says  of  the  transactions  of  Jan.  3  is 
much  the  same  as  we  read  in  the  Jour 
nals.  He  thus  proceeds  :  —  "  Tuesday, 
January  4,  1641.  The  five  gentlemen 
which  were  to  be  accused  came  into  the 
house,  and  there  was  information  that 
they  should  be  taken  away  by  force. 
Upon  this  the  house  sent  to  the  lord 
mayor,  aldermen,  and  common  council, 
to  let  them  know  how  their  privileges 
were  likely  to  be  broken  and  the  city  put 
into  danger,  and  advised  them  to  look  to 
their  security. 

"  Likewise  some  members  were  sent 
to  the  inns  of  court  to  let  them  know 
how  they  heard  they  were  tampered 
withal  to  assist  the  king  against  them, 
and  therefore  they  desired  them  not  to 
come  to  Westminster. 

"  Then  the  house  adjourned  to  one  of 
the  clock. 

"  As  soon  as  the  house  met  again  it 
was  moved,  considering  there  was  an  in 
tention  to  take  these  five  members  away 
by  force,  to  avoid  all  tumult,  let  them  be 
commanded  to  absent  themselves  ;  upon 
this  the  house  gave  them  leave  to  absent 
themselves,  but  entered  no  order  for  it. 
And  then  the  five  gentlemen  went  out  of 
the  house. 

"  A  little  after  the  king  came  with  all 
his  guard,  and  all  his  pensioners,  and 
two  or  three  hundred  soldiers  and  gen 
tlemen.  The  king  commanded  the  sol 
diers  to  stay  in  the  hall,  and  sent  us 
word  he  was  at  the  door.  The  speaker 
was  commanded  to  sit  still  with  the  mace 
lying  before  him.  and  then  the  kim^ 
came  to  the  door  and  took  the  palsgrave 
in  with  him,  and  commanded  all  that 
came  with  him  upon  their  lives  not  to 
come  iu.  So  the  doors  were  kept  open, 
and  the  earl  of  Roxburgh  stood  within 
the  door,  leaning  upon  it.  Then  the 
king  came  upwards  towards  the  chair 


126       ATTEMPT  TO  ARREST  THE  FIVE  MEMBERS.      CHAP.  IX. 


which  rendered  his  affairs  irretrievable  by  anything  short  of 
civil  war,  and  placed  all  reconciliation  at  an  insuperable 
distance,  was  his  attempt  to  seize  the  five  members  within 
the  wiills  of  the  house  ;  an  evident  violation,  not  of  common 
privilege,  but  of  all  security  for  the  independent  existence 
of  parliament  in  the  mode  of  its  execution,  and  leading  to 
a  very  natural  though  perhaps  mistaken  surmise,  that  the 
charge  itself  of  high  treason  made  against  these  distinguished 
leaders,  without  communicating  any  of  its  grounds,  had  no 
other  foundation  than  their  parliamentary  conduct.  And  we 
are  in  fact  warranted  by  the  authority  of  the  queen  herself 
to  assert  that  their  aim  in  this  most  secret  enterprise  was  to 
strike  terror  into  the  parliament,  and  regain  the  power  that 
had  been  wrested  from  their  grasp.1  It  is  unnecessary  to 
dwell  on  a  measure  so  well  known,  and  which  scarce  any 
of  the  king's  advocates  have  defended.  The  only  material 


with  his  hat  off.  and  the  speaker  stepped 
out  to  meet  him  :  then  the  king  stepped 
up  to  his  place,  and  stood  upon  the  step, 
but  sat  not  down  in  the  chair. 

••  And  after  he  had  looked  a  great 
while  he  told  us  he  would  not  break  our 
privileges,  but  treason  had  no  privilege  ; 
he  came  for  those  five  gentlemen,  for  he 
expected  obedience  yesterday,  and  not 
an  answer.  Then  he  called  Mr.  Pym 
and  Mr.  Hollis  by  name,  but  no  answer 
was  made.  Then  he  asked  the  speaker 
if  they  were  here,  or  where  they  were  ? 
Upon  this  the  speaker  fell  on  his  knees, 
and  desired  his  excuse,  for  he  was  a  ser 
vant  to  the  house,  and  had  neither  eyes 
nor  tongue  to  see  or  say  anj  tiling  but 
what  they  commanded  him  :  then  the 
king  told  him  he  thought  his  own  eyes 
were  as  good  as  his,  and  then  said  his 
birds  had  flown,  but  he  did  expect  the 
house  should  send  them  to  him  ;  and  if 
they  did  not.  he  would  seek  them  him 
self,  for  their  treason  was  foul,  and  such 
a  one  as  they  would  all  thank  him  to 
discover  :  then  he  assured  us  they  should 
have  a  fair  trial ;  and  so  went  out, 
pulling  off  his  hat  till  he  came  to  the 
door. 

••  Upon  this  the  house  did  instantly  re 
solve  to  adjourn  till  to-morrow  at  one  of 
the  clock,  and  in  the  interim  they  might 
consider  what  to  do. 

"  Wednesday,  5th  January.  1641. 

"  The  house  ordered  a  committee  to 
sit  at  Guildhall  in  London,  and  all  that 
would  come  had  voices.  This  was  to 
consider  and  advise  how  to  right  the 
house  in  point  of  privilege  broken  by  the 
king's  coming  yesterday  with  a  force  to 


take  members  out  of  our  house.  They 
allowed  the  Irish  committee  to  sit,  but 
would  meddle  with  no  other  business  till 
this  were  ended;  they  acquainted  the 
lords  in  a  message  with  what  they  had 
done,  and  then  they  adjourned  the  house 
till  Tuesday  next." 

The  author  of  these  memoranda  in 
pencil,  which  extend,  at  intervals  of 
time,  from  the  meeting  of  the  parliament 
to  April.  1642,  though  mistaken  by  Mr. 
Hatsell  for  sir  Edward  Verney.  member 
for  the  county  of  Bucks,  and  killed  at 
the  battle  of  Edgehill,  has  been  ascer 
tained  by  my  learned  friend,  Mr.  Ser 
geant  D'Oyly.  to  be  his  brother,  sir 
Ralph,  member  for  Aylesbury.  He  con 
tinued  at  Westminster,  and  took  the 
covenant;  but  afterwards  retired  to 
France,  and  was  disabled  to  sit  by  a 
vote  of  the  house,  Sept.  22,  1645. 

i  Mem.  de  Motteville,  i.  264.  Claren 
don  has  hardly  been  ingenuous  in  throw 
ing  so  much  of  the  blame  of  this  affair 
on  lord  Digby.  Indeed,  he  insinuates  in 
one  place  that  the  queen ;s  apprehension 
of  being  impeached,  with  which  some 
one  in  the  confidence  of  the  parliamen 
tary  leaders  (either  lord  Holland  or  lady 
Carlisle)  had  inspired  her,  led  to  the 
scheme  of  anticipating  them.  (ii.  232.) 
It  has  been  generally  supposed  that  lady 
Carlisle  gave  the  five  members  a  hint  to 
absent  themselves.  The  French  ambas 
sador,  however,  Montereuil,  takes  the 
credit  to  himself:  —  "J'avois  prevenu 
mes  amis,  et  ils  s'etoient  mis  en  sfirete." 
Mazure.  p.  429.  It  is  probable  that  he 
was  in  communication  with  that  intrigu 
ing  lady. 


CHA.  I.  — 1640-42.  THE  MILITIA.  127 

subject  it  affords  for  reflection  is,  how  far  the  manifest 
hostility  of  Charles  to  the  popular  chiefs  might  justify  them 
in  rendering  it  harmless  by  wresting  the  sword  out  of  his 
hands.  No  man  doubtless  has  a  right,  for  the  sake  only  of 
his  own  security,  to  subvert  his  country's  laws,  or  to  plunge 
her  into  civil  war.  But  Ilampden.  Ilollis,  and  Pym  might 
not  absurdly  consider  the  defence  of  English  freedom  bound 
up  in  their  own,  assailed  as  they  were  for  its  sake  and  by  its 
enemies.  It  is  observed  by  Clarendon  that  "Mr.  Ilampden 
was  much  altered  after  this  accusation  ;  his  nature  and 
courage  seeming  much  fiercer  than  before."  And  it  is 
certain  that  both  he  and  Mr.  Pym  were  not  only  most  for 
ward  in  all  the  proceedings  which  brought  on  the  war,  but 
among  the  most  implacable  opponents  of  all  overtures  to 
wards  reconciliation;  so  that,  although,  both  dying  in  1643, 
we  cannot  pronounce  with  absolute  certainty  as  to  their 
views,  there  can  be  little  room  to  doubt  that  they  would  have 
adhered  to  the  side  of  Cromwell  and  St.  John,  in  the  great 
separation  of  the  parliamentary  party. 

The  noble  historian  confesses  that  not  Ilampden  alone, 
but  the  generality  of  those  who  were  beginning  to  judge 
more  favorably  of  the  king,  had  their  inclinations  alienated 
by  this  fatal  act  of  violence.1  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that 
each  of  the  two  most  striking  encroachments  on  the  king's 
prerogative  sprang  directly  from  the  suspicions  roused  of  an 
intention  to  destroy  their  privileges :  the  bill  perpetuating 
the  parliament  having  been  hastily  passed  on  the  discovery 
of  Percy's  and  Jermyn's  conspiracy,  and  the  present  attempt 
on  the  five  members  inducing  the  commons  to  insi.-t  peremp 
torily  on  vesting  the  command  of  the  militia  in  Question  of 
persons  of  their  own  nomination  ;  a  security,  in-  the  lin'litia- 
deed,  at  which  they  had  been  less  openly  aiming  from  the 
time  of  that  conspiracy,  and  particularly  of  late.2  Every 

1  P.  159,  180.  names    to   the  house,  and  who  are   the 

2  The  earliest  proof  that  the  commons  governors   of   forts  and  castles  in   their 
gave  of  their  intention  to  take  the  militia  counties.    Commons' Journals.    Not  long 
into  their  hands  was  immediately  upon  afterwards,  or  at  least  before  the  king's 
the  discovery  of  Percy's  plot.  5tli  May,  journey  to  Scotland,  air  Arthur  Haslerig, 
1641.  when  an  order  was  made  tliat  the  as  Clarendon  informs  us,  proposed  a  bill 
members   of  each   county.    &c.,    should  for  settling  the  militia  in  such  hands  as 
meet  to  consider  in  what  state  the  places  they  should   nominate,   which    was    se<:- 
for  which  they  serve  are  in  respect    of  ended  by  St.  John,  and  read  once,  ••  but 
arms  and  ammunition,  and  whether  the  with   so   universal  a  dislike,  that  it  was 
deputy-lieutenants    and  lord-lieutenants  never  called  upon  a  second  time."    Clar- 
are  persons  well  affected  to  the  religion  endon,  i.  488.     I  can  find  nothing  of  this 
aud  the  public  peace,  and  to  present  their  in  the  Journals,  and  believe  it  to  be  one 


128  MILITARY   FORCE  IX  ENGLAND.  CHAP.  IX. 

one  knows  that  this  was  the  grand  question  upon  which  the 
quarrel  finally  rested ;  but  it  may  be  satisfactory  to  show, 
more  precisely  than  our  historians  have  generally  done,  what 
was  meant  by  the  power  of  the  militia,  and  what  was  the 
exact  ground  of  dispute  in  this  respect  between  Charles  I. 
and  his  parliament. 

The  military  force  which  our  ancient  constitution  had 
Historical  placed  in  the  hands  of  its  chief  magistrate  and 
thfmiiuLy  tllose  deriving  authority  from  him,  may  be  classed 
force  in  under  two  descriptions :  one  principally  designed 
to  maintain  the  king's  and  the  nation's  rights 
abroad,  the  other  to  protect  them  at  home  from  attack  or 
disturbance.  The  first  comprehends  the  tenures  by  knight's 
service,  which,  according  to  the  constant  principles  of  a  feu 
dal  monarchy,  bound  the  owners  of  lands,  thus  held  from 
the  crown,  to  attend  the  king  in  war,  within  or  without  the 
realm,  mounted  and  armed,  during  the  regular  term  of  ser 
vice.  Their  own  vassals  were  obliged  by  the  same  law  to 
accompany  them.  But  the  feudal  service  was  limited  to 
forty  days,  beyond  which  time  they  could  be  retained  only 
by  their  own  consent,  and  at  the  king's  expense.  The  mili 
tary  tenants  were  frequently  called  upon  in  expeditions 
against  Scotland,  and  last  of  all  in  that  of  1640;  but  the 
short  duration  of  their  legal  service  rendered  it,  of  course, 
nearly  useless  in  continental  warfare.  Kven  when  they 

of  the  anachronisms  into  which  this  these  numbers.  The  hill,  however,  was 
author  has  fallen,  in  consequence  of  laid  aside,  a  new  plan  having  been  de- 
writing  at  a  distance  from  authentic  vised.  It  was  ordered,  31st  Dec.  1641, 
material*.  The  bill  to  which  he  alludes  "  that  the  house  be  resolved  into  a  corn- 
must,  I  conceive,  be  that  brought  in  by  mittee  on  Monday  next  (Jan.  3),  to  take 
Haslerig  long  after,  7th  December,  1641,  into  consideration  the  militia  of  the  king- 
not,  as  he  terms  it,  for  settling  the  mill-  dom."  That  Monday,  Jan.  3.  was  the 
tia,  but  for  making  certain  persons,  leav-  famous  day  of  the  king's  message  about 
ing  their  names  in  blank,  "  lords  general  the  five  members  ;  and  on  Jan.  13,  a 
of  all  the  forces  within  England  and  declaration  for  putting  the  kingdom  in  a 
Wales,  and  lord  admiral  of  England.7'  state  of  defence  passed  the  commons,  by 
The  persons  intended  seem  to  have  been  which  all  officers,  magistrates,  &e..  were 
Essex,  Holland,  and  Northumberland,  enjoined  to  take  care  that  no  soldiers  be 
The  commons  had  for  some  time  planned  raised,  nor  any  castles  or  arms  given  up, 
to  give  the  two  former  earls  a  supreme  ivithout  his  majesty's  pleasure  signified 
command  over  the  trained  bands  north  by  both  houses  of  parliament.  Commons' 
and  south  of  Trent  (Journals,  Nov.  15  Journals.  Parl.  Hist.  1035.  The  lords 
and  16),  which  was  afterwards  changed  at  the  time  refused  to  concur  in  this  dcc- 
into  the  scheme  of  lord-lieutenants  of  laration,  which  was  afterwards  changed 
their  own  nomination  for  each  county,  into  the  ordinance  for  the  militia;  but 
The  bill  above  mentioned  having  been  32  peers  signed  a  protest  (id.  1049),  and 
once  read,  it  was  moved  that  it  be  re-  the  house  not  many  days  afterwards 
jected,  which  was  negatived  by  158  to  came  to  an  opposite  vote,  joining  with  the 
125.  Commons'  Journals,  7th  Dec.  Nal-  commons  in  their  demand  of  the  militia, 
son,  ii.  719,  has  made  a  mistake  about  Id.  1072.  1091. 


CHA.  I.  — 1640-42.     LAWS  AGAINST  COMPULSORY  LEVIES.   129 

formed  the  battle,  or  line  of  heavy-armed  cavalry,  it  was 
necessary  to  complete  the  army  by  recruits  of  foot-soldiers, 
whom  feudal  tenure  did  not  regularly  supply,  and  whose 
importance  was  soon  made  sensible  by  their  skill  in  our  na 
tional  weapon,  the  bow.  What  was  the  extent  of  the  king's 
lawful  prerogative  for  two  centuries  or  more  after  the  Con 
quest  as  to  compelling  any  of  his  subjects  to  serve  him  in 
foreign  war,  independently  of  the  obligations  of  tenure,  is  a 
question  scarcely  to  be  answered ;  since,  knowing  so  imper 
fectly  the  boundaries  of  constitutional  law  in  that  period,  we 
have  little  to  guide  us  but  precedents ;  and  precedents,  in 
such  times,  are  apt  to  be  much  more  records  of  power  than 
of  right.  We  find  certainly  several  instances  under  Edward 
I.  and  Edward  II.,  sometimes  of  proclamations  to  the  sher 
iffs,  directing  them  to  notify  to  all  persons  of  sufficient  estate 
that  they  must  hold  themselves  ready  to  attend  the  king 
whenever  he  should  call  on  them,  sometimes  of  commissions 
to  particular  persons  in  different  counties,  who  are  enjoined 
to  choose  and  array  a  competent  number  of  horse  and  foot 
for  the  king's  service.1  But  these  levies  being,  of  course, 
vexatious  to  the  people,  and  contrary  at  least  to  the  spirit  of 
those  immunities  which,  under  the  shadow  of  the  great  char 
ter,  they  were  entitled  to  enjoy,  Edward  III.,  on  the  petition 
of  his  first  parliament,  who  judged  that  such  compulsory 
service  either  was  or  ought  to  be  rendered  illegal,  passed 
a  remarkable  act,  with  the  simple  brevity  of  those  times : 
"  That  no  man  from  henceforth  should  be  charged  to  arm 
himself,  otherwise  than  he  was  wont  in  the  time  of  his  pro 
genitors,  the  kings  of  England ;  and  that  no  man  be  com 
pelled  to  go  out  of  his  shire,  but  where  necessity  require th, 
and  sudden  coming  of  strange  enemies  into  the  realm ;  and 
then  it  shall  be  done  as  hath  been  used  in  times  past  for  the 
defence  of  the  realm."  2 

This  statute,  by  no  means  of  inconsiderable  importance  in 
our  constitutional  history,  put  a  stop  for  some  ages  to  these 
arbitrary  conscriptions.  But  Edward  had  recourse  to  an 
other  means  of  levying  men  without  his  own  cost,  by  calling 

1  Rymer,   sub  Edw.  I.  et  II.  passim,  probarent  indilate  ;  ita  quod  sint  prompti 

Thus,   in  1297,  a  writ  to  the  sheriff  of  et  parati  ad  veniendum  ad  nos  eteundum 

Yorkshire  directs  him  to  make  known  to  cum  propria  persona  nostra.   pro   defen- 

all,  qui  hubent  20  libratas  terrae  et  reditus  sione  ipsorum  et  totius  regni  nostri  prse- 

per  annum,  tarn  illis  qui  non.tenent  de  dicti,  quandocunque  pro  ipsis  duxerimus 

uobis  incapite  quam  illis  qui  tenent.  ut  demandandum  :  ii.  864. 

de  equis  et  armis  sibi  provideant  et  se  -  Stat.  1  Edw.  III.  c.  5. 
VOL.  II.                                  9 


130  LAWS  AGAIXST  COMPULSORY,  LEVIES.      CHAP.  IX. 

on  the  counties  and  principal  towns  to  furnish  a  certain  num 
ber  of  troops.  Against  this  the  parliament  provided  a  rem 
edy  by  an  act  in  the  25th  year  of  his  reign  :  "  That  no  man 
shall  be  constrained  to  find  men-at-arms,  hoblers,  nor  arch 
ers,  other  than  those  who  hold  by  such  service,  if  it  be  not 
by  common  consent  and  grant  in  parliament."  Both  these 
statutes  were  recited  and  confirmed  in  the  fourth  year  of 
Henry  IV.1 

The  successful  resistance  thus  made  by  parliament  appears 
to  have  produced  the  discontinuance  of  compulsory  levies  for 
foreign  warfare.  Edward  III.  and  his  successors,  in  their 
long  contention  with  France,  resorted  to  the  mode  of  recruit 
ing  by  contracts  with  men  of  high  rank  or  military  estima 
tion,  whose  influence  was  greater  probably  than  that  of  the 
crown  towards  procuring  voluntary  enlistments.  The  pay 
of  soldiers,  which  we  find  stipulated  in  such  of  those  con 
tracts  as  are  extant,  was  extremely  high  ;  but  it  secured  the 
service  of  a  brave  and  vigorous  yeomanry.  Under  the  house 
of  Tudor,  in  conformity  to  their  more  despotic  scheme  of 
government,  the  salutary  enactments  of  former  times  came 
to  be  disregarded  ;  Henry  VIII.  and  Elizabeth  sometimes 
compelling  the  counties  to  furnish  soldiers  :  and  the  preroga 
tive  of  pressing  men  for  military  service,  even  out  of  the 
kingdom,  having  not  only  become  as  much  established  as 
undisputed  usage  could  make  it,  but  acquiring  no  slight  de 
gree  of  sanction  by  an  act  passed  under  Philip  and  Mary, 
which,  without  repealing  or  adverting  to  the  statutes  of  Ed 
ward  III.  and  Henry  IV.,  recognizes,  as  it  seems,  the  right 
of  the  crown  to  levy  men  for  service  in  war,  and  imposes 
penalties  on  persons  absenting  themselves  from  musters  com 
manded  by  the  king's  authority  to  be  held  for  that  purpose.2 
Clarendon,  whose  political  heresies  sprang  in  a  great  meas 
ure  from  his  possessing  but  a  very  imperfect  knowledge  of 
our  ancient  constitution,  speaks  of  the  act  that  declared  the 
pressing  of  soldiers  illegal,  though  exactly  following,  even  in 
its  language,  that  of  Edward  III.,  as  contrary  to  the  usage 
and  custom  of  all  times. 

1  25  Edw.  III.  c.  8 ;  4  H.  IV.  c.  13.  tion.  See  vols.  309, 1926, 2219.  and  others. 

2  4  &  5  Philip  and  Mary,  c.  3.     The  Tliauks  to  Humphrey  Wanley's  diligence, 
Harleian   manuscripts   are  the   best  an-  the  analysis  of  these  papers  in  the  cata- 
thority  for  the  practice  of  pressing  sol-  logue  will  save  the  inquirer  the  trouble 
diers   to  serve   in    Ireland  or  elsewhere,  of  reading,  or  the  mortification  of  finding 
and  are  full  of  instances.     The  Mouldys  he  cannot  read,   the   terrible  scrawl  in 
and  Bullcalfs  were  in  frequent  requisi-  which  they  are  generally  written. 


CIIA.  I.  — 1640-42.     XO  REGULAR  ARMY   IX  ENGLAND.         131 

It  is  scarcely  perhaps  necessary  to  observe  that  there  had 
never  been  any  regular  army  kept  up  in  England.  Henry 
VII.  established  the  yeomen  of  the  guard  in  1485,  solely  for 
the  defence  of  his  person,  and  rather  perhaps,  even  at  that 
time,  to  be  considered  as  the  king's  domestic  servants  than 
as  soldiers.  Their  number  was  at  first  fifty,  and  seems  never 
to  have  exceeded  two  hundred.  A  kind  of  regular  troops, 
however,  chiefly  accustomed  to  the  use  of  artillery,  was  main 
tained  in  the  very  few  fortified  places  where  it  was  thought 
necessary  or  practicable  to  keep  up  the  show  of  defence  ;  the 
Tower  of  London,  Portsmouth,  the  castle  of  Dover,  the  fort 
of  Tilbury,  and,  before  the  union  of  the  crowns,  Berwick  and 
some  other  places  on  the  Scottish  border.  I  have  met  with 
very  little  as  to  the  nature  of  these  garrisons.  But  their 
whole  number  must  have  been  insignificant,  and  probably 
at  no  time  equal  to  resist  any  serious  attack. 

We  must  take  care  not  to  confound  this  strictly  military 
force,  serving,  whether  by  virtue  of  tenure  or  engagement, 
wheresoever  it  should  be  called,  with  that  of  a  more  domestic 
and  defensive  character  to  which  alone  the  name  of  militia 
was  usually  applied.  By  the  Anglo-Saxon  laws,  or  rather 
by  one  of  the  primary  and  indispensable  conditions  of  politi 
cal  society,  every  freeholder,  if  not  every  freeman,  was  bound 
to  defend  his  country  against  hostile  invasion.  It  appears 
that  the  alderman  or  earl,  while  those  titles  continued  to  im 
ply  the  government  of  a  county,  was  the  proper  commander 
of  this  militia.  Henry  II.,  in  order  to  render  it  more  effec 
tive  in  cases  of  emergency,  and  perhaps  with  a  view  to  ex 
tend  its  service,  enacted,  by  consent  of  parliament,  that  every 
freeman,  according  to  the  value  of  his  estate  or  movables, 
should  hold  himself  constantly  furnished  with  suitable  arms 
and  equipments.1  By  the  statute  of  Winchester,  in  the  13th 
year  of  Edward  I.,  these  provisions  were  enforced  and  ex 
tended.  Every  man,  between  the  ages  of  fifteen  and  sixty, 
was  to  be  assessed,  and  sworn  to  keep  armor  according  to 
the  value  of  his  lands  and  goods  ;  for  fifteen  pounds  and  up 
wards  in  rent,  or  forty  marks  in  goods,  a  hauberk,  an  iron 
breastplate,  a  sword,  a  knife,  and  a  horse ;  for  smaller  prop 
erty,  less  extensive  arms.  A  view  of  this  armor  was  to  be 
taken  twice  in  the  year  by  constables  chosen  in  every  hun- 

i  Wilkins's  Leges  Anglo-Saxonicse,  p.  333;  Lyttleton's  Henry  II.,  iii.  354. 


132  COMMISSIONS   OF  ARRAY.  CHAP.  IX. 

dred.1  These  regulations  appear  by  the  context  of  the  whole 
statute  to  have  more  immediate  regard  to  the  preservation  of 
internal  peace,  by  suppressing  tumults  and  arresting  robbers, 
than  to  the  actual  defence  of  the  realm  against  hostile  inva 
sion  ;  a  danger  not  at  that  time  very  imminent.  The  sheriff, 
as  chief  conservator  of  public  peace  and  minister  of  the  law, 
had  always  possessed  the  right  of  summoning  the  posse  com- 
itatus ;  that  is,  of  calling  on  all  the  king's  liege  subjects 
within  his  jurisdiction  for  assistance,  in  case  of  any  rebellion 
or  tumultuous  rising,  or  when  bands  of  robbers  infested  the 
public  ways,  or  when,  as  occurred  very  frequently,  the  exe 
cution  of  legal  process  was  forcibly  obstructed.  It  seems  to 
have  been  the  policy  of  that  wise  prince,  to  whom  we  are 
indebted  for  so  many  signal  improvements  in  our  law,  to  give 
a  more  effective  and  permanent  energy  to  this  power  of  the 
sheriff.  The  provisions,  however,  of  the  statute  of  Winches 
ter,  so  far  as  they  obliged  every  proprietor  to  possess  suitable 
arms,  were  of  course  applicable  to  national  defence.  In  sea 
sons  of  public  danger,  threatening  invasion  from  the  side  of 
Scotland  or  France,  it  became  customary  to  issue  commissions 
of  array,  empowering  those  to  whom  they  were  addressed  to 
muster  and  train  all  men  capable  of  bearing  arms  in  the 
counties  to  which  their  commission  extended,  and  hold  them 
in  readiness  to  defend  the  kingdom.  The  earliest  of  these 
commissions  that  I  find  in  Rymer  is  of  1324,  and  the  latest 
of  1557. 

The  obligation  of  keeping  sufficient  arms  according  to  each 
man's  estate  was  preserved  by  a  statute  of  Philip  and  Mary, 
which  made  some  changes  in  the  rate  and  proportion  as  well 
as  the  kind  of  arms.2  But  these  ancient  provisions  were 
abrogated  by  James  in  his  first  parliament.3  The  nation, 
become  forever  secure  from  invasion  on  the  quarter  where 
the  militia  service  had  been  most  required,  and  freed  from 
the  other  dangers  which  had  menaced  the  throne  of  Eliza 
beth,  gladly  saw  itself  released  from  an  expensive  obligation. 
The  government  again  may  be  presumed  to  have  thought 

1  Stat  13  E.  1.  estate  to  furnish  a  lance  at  the  discretion 

2  5  Philip  and  Mary,  c.  2.  of  the  lord-lieutenant,  was  unwarranted 

3  1  Jac.  c.  25,  §  46.    An  order  of  coun-  by  any  existing  law,  and  must  be  reck- 
cil  in  Dec.  1638,  that  every  man  having  oned  among  the  violent  stretches  of  pre- 
lands  of  inheritance  to  the  clear  yearly  rogative  at  that  time.     Rushw.  Abr.  ii. 
value  of  20W.  should  be  chargeable  to  fur-  500. 

nish  a  light  horseman,  every  one  of  300/. 


CHA.  I.  — 1640-42.     OFFICE  OF   LORD-LIEUTENANT.  133 

that  weapons  of  offence  were  safer  in  its  hands  than  in  those 
of  its  subjects.  Magazines  of  arms  were  formed  in  different 
places,  and  generally  in  each  county  : l  but,  if  we  may  rea 
son  from  the  absence  of  documents,  there  was  little  regard  to 
military  array  and  preparation  ;  save  that  the  citizens  of 
London  mustered  their  trained  bands  on  holidays,  an  institu 
tion  that  is  said  to  have  sprung  out  of  a  voluntary  association, 
called  the  Artillery  Company,  formed  in  the  reign  of  Henry 
VIII.  for  the  encouragement  of  archery,  and  acquiring  a 
more  respectable  and  martial  character  at  the  time  of  the 
Spanish  Armada.2 

The  power  of  calling  to  arms,  and  mustering  the  popula 
tion  of  each  county,  given  in  earlier  times  to  the  sheriff  or 
justices  of  the  peace,  or  to  special  commissioners  of  array, 
began  to  be  intrusted,  in  the  reign  of  Mary,  to  a  new  officer, 
entitled  the  lord-lieutenant.  This  was  usually  a  peer,  or  at 
least  a  gentleman  of  large  estate  within  the  county,  whose 
office  gave  him  the  command  of  the  militia,  and  rendered 
him  the  chief  vicegerent  of  his  sovereign,  responsible  for  the 
maintenance  of  public  order.  This  institution  may  be  con 
sidered  as  a  revival  of  the  ancient  local  earldom  ;  and  it  cer 
tainly  took  away  from  the  sheriff  a  great  part  of  the  dignity 
and  importance  which  he  had  acquired  since  the  discontinu 
ance  of  that  office.  Yet  the  lord-lieutenant  has  so  peculiarly 
military  an  authority,  that  it  does  not  in  any  degree  control  the 
civil  power  of  the  sheriff  as  the  executive  minister  of  the  law. 
In  certain  cases,  such  as  a  tumultuous  obstruction  of  legal 
authority,  each  might  be  said  to  possess  an  equal  power  ;  the 
sheriff  being  still  undoubtedly  competent  to  call  out  the  posse 
comitatus  in  order  to  enforce  obedience.  Practically,  how 
ever,  in  all  serious  circumstances,  the  lord-lieutenant  has 
always  been  reckoned  the  efficient  and  responsible  guardian 
of  public  tranquillity. 

From  an  attentive  consideration  of  this  sketch  of  our  mili 
tary  law,  it  will  strike  the  reader  that  the  principal  ques 
tion  to  be  determined  was,  whether,  in  time  of  peace,  without 
pretext  of  danger  of  invasion,  there  were  any  legal  authority 
that  could  direct  the  mustering  and  training  to  arms  of  the 
able-bodied  men  in  each  county,  usually  denominated  the 
militia.  If  the  power  existed  at  all,  it  manifestly  resided  in 

1  Rymer,  xix.  310.  The  word  artillery  was  used  in  that  age 

2  Grose's  Military  Antiquities,  i.  150.     for  the  long  bow. 


134  ENCROACHMENTS   OF  PARLIAMENT.         CHAP.  IX. 

the  king.  The  notion  that  either  or  both  houses  of  parlia 
ment,  who  possess  no  portion  of  executive  authority,  could 
take  on  themselves  one  of  its  most  peculiar  and  important 
functions,  was  so  preposterous  that  we  can  scarcely  give 
credit  to  the  sincerity  of  any  reasonable  person  who  ad 
vanced  it.  In  the  imminent  peril  of  hostile  invasion,  in  the 
case  of  intestine  rebellion,  there  seems  to  be  no  room  for 
doubt  that  the  king,  who  could  call  on  his  subjects  to  bear 
arms  for  their  country  and  laws,  could  oblige  them  to  that 
necessary  discipline  and  previous  training,  without  which 
their  service  would  be  unavailing.  It  might  also  be  urged 
that  he  was  the  proper  judge  of  the  danger.  But  that,  in  a 
season  of  undeniable  tranquillity,  he  could  withdraw  his  sub 
jects  from  their  necessary  labors  against  their  consent,  even 
for  the  important  end  of  keeping  up  the  use  of  military  disci 
pline,  is  what,  with  our  present  sense  of  the  limitations  of 
royal  power,  it  might  be  difficult  to  affirm.  The  precedents 
under  Henry  VIII.  and  Elizabeth  were  numerous ;  but  not 
to  mention  that  many,  perhaps  most,  of  these  might  come  un 
der  the  class  of  preparations  against  invasion,  where  the  royal 
authority  was  not  to  be  doubted,  they  could  be  no  stronger 
than  those  other  precedents  for  pressing  and  mustering  sol 
diers,  which  had  been  declared  illegal.  There  were  at  least 
so  many  points  uncertain,  and  some  wherein  the  prerogative 
was  plainly  deficient,  such  as  the  right  of  marching  the  mili 
tia  out  of  their  own  counties,  taken  away,  if  it  had  before  ex 
isted,  by  the  act  just  passed  against  pressing  soldiers,  that  the 
concurrence  of  the  whole  legislature  seemed  requisite  to  place 
so  essential  a  matter  as  the  public  defence  on  a  secure  and 
permanent  footing.1 

The  aim  of  the  houses  however  in  the  bill  for  regulating 
the  militia,    presented   to    Charles    in    February, 
mentsof        1642,  and  his  refusal  to  pass  which  led  by  rapid 
mentarlia~      steps  to  the  civil  war,  was  not  so  much  to  remove 
those  uncertainties  by  a  general  provision  (for  in 
effect  they  left  them  much  as  before),  as  to  place  the  com 
mand  of  the  sword  in  the  hands  of  those  they  could  control ; 
—  nominating  in  the  bill  the  lords-lieutenant  of  every  county, 
who  were  to  obey  the  orders  of  the  two  houses,  and  to  be  ir- 

i  Whitelock  maintained,  both  on  this  129.  This,  though  not  very  well  ex- 
occasion  and  at  the  treaty  of  Uxbridge,  pressed,  can  only  mean  that  it  required 
that  the  power  of  the  militia  resided  in  an  act  of  parliament  to  determine  and 
the  king  and  two  houses  jointly  :  p.  55,  regulate  it. 


CHA.  I.  — 1640-42.      CHARLES'S   CONCESSIONS-  135 

removable  by  the  king  for  two  years.  No  one  can  pretend 
that  this  was  not  an  encroachment  on  his  prerogative.1  It 
can  only  tind  a  justification  in  the  precarious  condition,  as 
the  commons  asserted  it  to  be,  of  those  liberties  they  had  so 
recently  obtained,  in  their  just  persuasion  of  the  king's  in 
sincerity,  and  in  the  demonstrations  he  had  already  made  of 
an  intention  to  win  back  his  authority  at  the  sword's  point.2 
But  it  is  equitable,  on  the  other  hand,  to  observe  that  the 
commons  had  by  no  means  greater  reason  to  distrust  the 
faith  of  Charles,  than  he  had  to  anticipate  fresh  assaults 
from  them  on  the  power  he  had  inherited,  on  the  form  of 
religion  which  alone  he  thought  lawful,  on  the  counsellors 
who  had  served  him  most  faithfully,  and  on  the  nearest  of 
his  domestic  ties.  If  the  right  of  self-defence  could  be  urged 
by  parliament  for  this  demand  of  the  militia,  must  we  not 
admit  that  a  similar  plea  was  equally  valid  for  the  king's 
refusal?  However  arbitrary  and  violent  the  previous  gov 
ernment  of  Charles  may  have  been,  however  disputable  his 
sincerity  at  present,  it  is  vain  to  deny  that  he  had  made  the 
most  valuable  concessions,  and  such  as  had  cost  him  very 
dear.  lie  had  torn  away  from  his  diadem  what  all  monarchs 
would  deem  its  choicest  jewel  —  that  high  attribute  of  un 
controllable  power,  by  which  their  flatterers  have  in  all  ages 
told  them  they  resemble  and  represent  the  Divinity.  He 
had  seen  those  whose  counsels  he  had  best  approved  reward 
ed  with  exile  or  imprisonment,  and  had  incurred  the  deep 
reproach  of  his  own  heart  by  the  sacrifice  of  Stratford.  He 
had  just  now  given  a  reluctant  assent  to  the  extinction  of 
one  estate  of  parliament,  by  the  bill  excluding  bishops  from 
the  house  of  peers.  Even  in  this  business  of  the  militia  he 
would  have  consented  to  nominate  the  persons  recommended 
to  him  as  lieutenants,  by  commissions  revocable  at  his  pleas 
ure  :  or  would  have  passed  the  bill  rendering  them  irremov- 


i  See  the  list  of  those  recommended,  ado  accepted,  and  first  read,  there  were 
Parl.  Hist.  1083.  Some  of  these  were  few  men  who  imagined  it  would  ever 
royalists  :  but,  on  the  whole,  three-fourths  receive  further  countenance;  but  now 
of  the  military  force  of  England  would  there  were  very  few  who  did  not  believe 
have  been  in  the  hands  of  persons  who,  it  to  be  a  very  necessary  provision  for  the 
though  men  of  rank  and  attached  to  the  peace  and  safety  of  the  kingdom.  So 
monarchy,  had  given  Charles  no  reason  great  an  impression  had  the  late  proceed- 
to  hope  that  they  would  decline  to  obey  ings  made  upon  them,  that  with  little 
any  order  which  the  parliament  might  opposition  it  passed  the  commons,  and 
issue,  however  derogatory  or  displeasing  was  sent  up  to  the  lords.''  Clarendon, 
to  himself.  ii.  180. 

-  ••  When  this  bill  had  been  with  much 


136  THE  NINETEEN  PROPOSITIONS.  CHAP.  IX. 

able  for  one  year,  provided  they  might  receive  their  orders 
from  himself  and  the  two  houses  jointly.1  It  was  not  unrea 
sonable  for  the  king  to  pause  at  the  critical  moment  which 
was  to  make  all  future  denial  nugatory,  and  inquire  whether 
the  prevailing  majority  designed  to  leave  him  what  they  had 
Nineteen  not  taken  away.  But  he  was  not  long  kept  in 
propositions,  uncertainty  upon  this  score.  The  nineteen  prop 
ositions  tendered  to  him  at  York  in  the  beginning  of  June, 
and  founded  upon  addresses  and  declarations  of  a  consider 
ably  earlier  date,2  went  to  abrogate  in  spirit  the  whole  exist 
ing  constitution,  and  were  in  truth  so  far  beyond  what  the 
king  could  be  expected  to  grant,  that  terms  more  intolerable 
were  scarcely  proposed  to  him  in  his  greatest  difficulties,  not 
at  Uxbridge,  nor  at  Newcastle,  nor  even  at  Newport. 

These  famous  propositions  import  that  the  privy  council 
and  officers  of  state  should  be  approved  by  parliament,  and 
take  such  an  oath  as  the  two  houses  should  prescribe  ;  that 
during  the  intervals  of  parliament  no  vacancy  in  the  council 
should  be  supplied  without  the  assent  of  the  major  part, 
subject  to  the  future  sanction  of  the  two  houses ;  that  the 
education  and  marriages  of  the  king's  children  should  be 
under  parliamentary  control ;  the  votes  of  popish  peers  be 
taken  away  ;  the  church  government  and  liturgy  be  reformed 
as  both  houses  should  advise ;  the  militia  and  all  fortified 
places  put  in  such  hands  as  parliament  should  approve; 
finally,  that  the  king  should  pass  a  bill  for  restraining  all 
peers  to  be  made  in  future  from  sitting  in  parliament,  unless 

1  Clarendon,  ii.  375  :   Parl.  Hist.  1077,  work  does  not  notice  that  it  had  passed 
1106,  &c.     It   may  be  added,  that    the  the  commons  on  Feb.  19,  before  the  king 
militia  bill,  as  originally  tendered  to  the  had   begun  to  move  towards  the  north, 
king  by  the  two  houses,  was  ushered  in  Commons'  Journals.  It  seenid  not  to  have 
by  a  preamble  asserting  that   there  had  pleased    the   house   of  lords,  who   post- 
been  a  most  dangerous  and  desperate  de-  poned  its  consideration,  and  was  much 
sign  on  the  house  of  commons,  the  effect  more  grievous  to  the  king  than  the  niue- 
of  the  bloody  counsels  of  the  papists  and  teen  propositions  themselves.     One  pro- 
other  ill-affected   persons,    who   had  al-  posal    was    to    remove    all    papists  from 
ready  raised  a  rebellion  in  Ireland.    Clar.  about  the  queen;  that  is,  to  deprive  her 
p.  336.     Surely  he  could  not  have  passed  of  the  exercise  of  her  religion,  guaranteed 
this,  especially  the  last  allusion,  without  by  her  marriage  contract.     To  this  ob- 
recording his  own  absolute  dishonor;  but  jection  Pyni  replied  that  the  house   of 
it  must  be  admitted,  that  on  the  king's  commons  had  only  to  consider  the  law  of 
objection  they  omitted  this  preamble,  and  God  and  the  law  of  the  land;  that  they 
also  materially  limited  the  powers  of  the  must  resist  idolatry,  lest  they  incur  the 
lords-lieutenant  to   be  appointed   under  divine  wrath,  and  must  see  the  laws  of 
the  bill.  this  kingdom  executed  ;  that  the  public 

2  A  declaration   of  the    grievances   of  faith  is  less  than  that  they  owe  to  God, 
the  kingdom,  and  the  remedies  proposed,  against  which   no    contract   can    oblige, 
dated  April  1,  may  be  found  in  the  Par-  neither  can  any  bind  us  against  the  law 
liamentary  History,  p.  1155.     But  that  ot  the  kingdom.     Parl.  Hist.  1162. 


CHA.  L— 1640-42.        CLAIMS  OF  SUPPORT.  137 

they  be  admitted  with  the  consent  of  both  houses.  A  few  more 
laudable  provisions,  such  as  that  the  judges  should  hold  their 
offices  during  good  behavior,  which  the  king  had  long  since 
promised,1  were  mixed  up  with  these  strange  demands. 
Even  had  the  king  complied  with  such  unconstitutional  req-t 
uisitions,  there  was  one  behind  which,  though  they  had  not  ^ 
advanced  it  on  this  occasion,  was  not  likely  to  be  forgotten. 
It  had  been  asserted  by  the  house  of  commons  in  their  last 
remonstrance,  that,  on  a  right  construction  of  the  old  corona-  / 
tion  oath,  the  king  was  bound  to  assent  to  all  bills  which 
the  two  houses  of  parliament  should  offer.2  It  has  been  said 
by  some  that  this  was  actually  the  constitution  of  Scotland, 
where  the  crown  possessed  a  counterbalancing  influence ; 
but  such  a  doctrine  was  in  this  country  as  repugnant  to  the 
whole  history  of  our  laws  as  it  was  incompatible  with  the 
subsistence  of  the  monarchy  in  anything  more  than  a  nom 
inal  preeminence. 

In  weighing  the  merits  of  this  great  contest,  in  judging 
whether  a   thoroughly    upright    and    enlightened  _. 

n      J         L      G  °  Discussion  of 

man  would  rather  have  listed  under  the  roy^l  or  the  respec- 
parliameirtary    standard,    there    are    two    political  o/the^two 
postulates,  the  concession    of  which   we  may  re-  parties  to 
quire  :  one,  that  civil  war  is  such  a  calamity  as  su 
nothing  but  the  most  indispensable  necessity  can  authorize 
any  party  to  bring  on  ;  the  other,  that  the  mixed  government 
of  England  by  king,  lords,  and  commons,  was  to  be  main 
tained  in  preference  to  any  other  form  of  polity.     The  first 
of  these  can  hardly  be  disputed ;  and  though  the  denial  of  the 
second   would   certainly    involve    no    absurdity,   yet    it  may 
justly  be  assumed  where  both  parties  avowed  their  adher- 


1  Parl.  Hist.  702.  if  the  former  were  right,  as  to  the  point 

2  Clarendon,  p.  452.      Upon  this  pas-  of  Latin  construction,  though  consuetu- 
sage  in  the  remonstrance  a  division  took  dines  seems  naturally  to    imply    a    past 
place,  when  it  was  carried  by  103  to  61.  tense,  I  should  by  no  means  admit  the 
Parl.  Hist.  1302.     The  words  in  the  old  strange    inference    that    the    king    was 
form  of  coronation  oath,  as  preserved  in  a  bound  to  sanction  all    laws  proposed  to 
bill  of  parliament  under  Heury  IV.,  con-  him.     His  own  assent  is  involved  in  the 
cerning  which  this  grammatico-political  expression, ''  quas  vulgus  elegerit,"  which 
contention  arose,  are   the   following  :  —  was  introduced,  on  the  hypothesis  of  the 
"  Coucedis  justas  leges  et  consuetudines  word  being  in  the  future  tense,  as  a  se- 
esse  tenendas,  et  promittis  per  te  eas  esse  curity    against    his    legislation   without 
protegendas,  et   ad   honorem  Dei  corro-  consent  of  the  people  in  parliament.    The 
borandas,  quas  vulgus  elegerit,  secundum  English  coronation  oath  which   Charles 
Tires  tuas?  ;'     It  was  maintained  by  one  had  taken  excludes  the  future  :  Sir.  will 
side  that  elegerit  should  be  construed  in  you  grant  to  hold  and  keep  the  laws  and 
the   future   tense,  while  the  other  con-  rightful  customs,  ivhich  the  commonalty 
tended  for  the  praeterperfect.     But  even  of  this  your  kingdom  have  ? 


138  FAULTS   OF  BOTH.  CHAP.  IX. 

ence  to  it  as  a  common  principle.  Such  as  prefer  a  despotic 
or  a  republican  form  of  government  will  generally,  without 
much  further  inquiry,  have  made  their  election  between 
Charles  I.  and  the  parliament.  We  do  not  argue  from  the 
creed  of  the  English  constitution  to  those  who  have  aban 
doned  its  communion. 

There  was  so  much  in  the  conduct  and  circumstances  of 
Faults  of  both  parties  in  the  year  1 642  to  excite  disappro- 
both-  bation  and  distrust,  that  a  wise  and  good  man 

could  hardly  unite  cordially  with  either  of  them.  On  the 
one  hand  he  would  entertain  little  doubt  of  the  king's  desire 
to  overthrow  by  force  or  stratagem  whatever  had  been 
effected  in  parliament,  and  to  establish  a  plenary  despotism ; 
his  arbitrary  temper,  his  known  principles  of  government, 
the  natural  sense  of  wounded  pride  and  honor,  the  instiga 
tions  of  a  haughty  woman,  the  solicitations  of  favorites,  the 
promises  of  ambitious  men,  were  all  at  work  to  render  his 
new  position  as  a  constitutional  sovereign,  even  if  unaccom 
panied  by  fresh  indignities  and  encroachments,  too  grievous 
and  mortifying  to  be  endured.  He  had  already  tampered  in 
a  conspiracy  to  overawe,  if  not  to  disperse,  the  parliament : 
he  had  probably  obtained  large  promises,  though  very  little 
to  be  trusted,  from  several  of  the  presbyterian  leaders  in 
Scotland  during  his  residence  there  in  the  summer  of  1641  : 
he  had  attempted  to  recover  his  ascendency  by  a  sudden 
blow  in  the  affair  of  the  five  members  ;  he  had  sent  the 
queen  out  of  England,  furnished  with  the  crown  jewels,  for 
no  other  probable  end  than  to  raise  men  and  procure  arms 
in  foreign  countries : l  he  was  now  about  to  take  the  field 
with  an  army,  composed  in  part  of  young  gentlemen  disdain 
ful  of  a  puritan  faction  that  censured  their  license,  and  of 
those  soldiers  of  fortune,  reckless  of  public  principle,  and 
averse  to  civil  control,  whom  the  war  in  Germany  had 
trained  ;  in  part  of  the  catholics,  a  wealthy  and  active  body, 
devoted  to  the  crown,  from  which  alone  they  had  experienced 
justice  or  humanity,  and  from  whose  favor  and  gratitude 
they  now  expected  the  most  splendid  returns.  Upon  neither 
of  these  parties  could  a  lover  of  his  country  and  her  liber- 

i  See  what  is  said  as  to  this  by  P.  ly  suspicious.    The  house,  it  appears,  had 

Orleans,  iii.  87.  and  by  Madame  de  Motte-  received  even  then  information  that  the 

ville.   i.  26.      Her   intended  journey   to  crown  jewels  were  to  be  carried  away. 

Spa,  July,  1641,  which  was  given  up  on  Nalson,  ii.  391. 
the  remonstrance  of  parliament,  is  high- 


CHA.  I.  —  1640-42.  CONDUCT  OF  THE  COMMONS.        139 

ties  look  without  alarm  ;  and  though  he  might  derive  more 
hope  from  those  better  spirits  who  had  withstood  the  preroga 
tive  in  its  exorbitance,  as  they  now  sustained  it  in  its  decline, 
yet  it  could  not  be  easy  to  foretell  that  they  would  preserve 
sufficient  influence  to  keep  steady  the  balance  of  power,  in 
the  contingency  of  any  decisive  success  of  the  royal  arms. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  house  of  commons  presented 
still  less  favorable  prospects.  We  should  not  indeed  judge 
over-severely  some  acts  of  a  virtuous  indignation  in  the  first 
moments  of  victory,1  or  those  heats  of  debate,  without  some 
excess  of  which  a  popular  assembly  is  in  danger  of  falling 
into  the  opposite  extreme  of  phlegmatic  security.  But,  after 
every  allowance  lias  been  made,  he  must  bring  very  heated 
passions  to  the  records  of  those  times  who  does  not  perceive 
in  the  conduct  of  that  body  a  series  of  glaring  violations, 
not  only  of  positive  and  constitutional,  but  of  those  higher 
principles  which  are  paramount  to  all  immediate  policy. 
Witness  the  ordinance  for  disarming  recu  ants  passed  by 
both  houses  in  August,  1  G41,  and  that  in  November  author 
izing  the  earl  of  Leicester  to  raise  men  for  the  defence  of 
Ireland  without  warrant  under  the  great  seal,  both  manifest 
encroachments  on  the  executive  power  ; 2  and  the  enormous 
extension  of  privilege,  under  which  every  person  accused  on 
the  slightest  testimony  of  disparaging  their  proceedings,  or 
even  of  introducing  new-fangled  ceremonies  in  the  church, 

1  The  impeachments  of  lord  Finch  and  rod  to  the  court  of  king's  bench,  while 
of  judge  Berkeley  for  high  treason  are  at  the  judges  were  sitting,  who  took  him 
least  as  little  justifiable  in  point  of  law  away  to  prison,  '-which  struck  a  great 
as  that  of  Straffbrd.  Yet,  because  the  terror,'1  says  Whitelook.  "  in  the  rest  of 
former  of  these  was  moved  by  lord  Falk-  his  brethren  then  sitting  in  Westminster- 
land,  Clarendon  is  so  far  from  objecting  hall,  and  in  all  his  profession."  The  im- 
to  it  that  he  imputes  as  a  fault  to  the  peachnient  against  Berkeley  for  high 
parliamentary  leaders  their  lukewarm-  treason  ended  in  his  paying  a  fine  of 
ness  in  this  prosecution,  and  insinuates  10,OOCW.  But  what  appears  strange  and 
that  they  were  desirous  to  save  Finch,  unjustifiable  is,  that  the  houses  suffered 
See  especially  the  new  edition  of  Claren-  him  to  sit  for  some  terms  as  a  judge 
don,  vol.  i.  Appendix.  But  they  might  with  this  impeachment  over  his  head, 
reasonably  think  that  Finch  was  not  of  The  only  excuse  for  this  is  that  there 
sufficient  importance  to  divert  their  at-  were  a  great  many  vacancies  on  that 
tendon  from  the  grand  apostate,  whom  bench. 

they  were  determined  to  punish.     Finch  -  Journals,  Aug.  30  and  Nov.  9.      It 

fled  to  Holland  ;    so  that  then  it  would  may  be   urged  in   behalf  of  these  ordi- 

have  been  absurd  to  take  much  trouble  nances,  that  the  king  had  gone  into  Scot- 

about  his  impeachment :  Falkland,  how-  laud  against  the  wish  of  the  two  houses, 

ever,  opened  it  to  the  lords,  14  Jan.  1641,  and  after  refusing   to  appoint  a  custos 

in  a  speech  containing  full  as  many  ex-  regui  at  their  request.     But  if  the   exi- 

travagaut    propositions    as    any    ut"   St.  gency  of  the  case  might  justify,  under 

John's.     Berkeley,  besides  his  forward-  those  circumstances,  the  assumption  of 

ness  about  ship-money,  had  been  notori-  an  irregular  power,  it  ought  to  have  been 

ous  for  subserviency  to  the  prerogative,  limited  to  the  period  of  the  sovereign's 

The  house  sent  the  usher  of  the  black  absence. 


140 


CONDUCT   OF   THE  COMMONS. 


CHAP.  IX. 


a  matter  wholly  out  of  their  cognizance,  was  dragged  before 
them  as  a  delinquent,  and  lodged  in  their  prison/1  Witness 
the  outrageous  attempts  to  intimidate  the  minority  of  their 
own  body  in  the  commitment  of  Mr.  Palmer,  and  afterwards 
of  sir  Ralph  Hopton  to  the  Tower,  for  such  language  used 
in  debate  as  would  not  have  excited  any  observation  in  or 
dinary  times  ;  —  their  continual  encroachments  on  the  rights 
and  privileges  of  the  lords,  as  in  their  intimation  that  if  bills 
thought  by  them  necessary  for  the  public  good  should  fall 
in  the  upper  house,  they  must  join  with  the  minority  of  the 
lords  in  representing  the  same  to  the  king ; 2  or  in  the  im 
peachment  of  the  duke  of  Richmond  for  words,  and  those 
of  the  most  trifling  nature,  spoken  in  the  upper  house ; 3  — 
their  despotic  violation  of  the  rights  of  the  people,  in  im 
prisoning  those  who  presented  or  prepared  respectful  petitions 
in  behalf  of  the  established  constitution;4  while  they  encour 
aged  those  of  a  tumultuous  multitude  at  their  bar  in  favor  of 


1  Parl.  Hist.  671,  et  alibi.      Journals 
passim.      Clarendon,   i.   475,    says,   this 
began  to  pass  all   bounds  after  the  act 
rendering  them  indissoluble.      "  It  had 
never,''  he  says,  '"  been  attempted  before 
this   parliament   to  commit  any  one  to 
prison,  except  for  some  apparent  breach 
of  privilege,  such  as  the  arrest  of  one  of 
their  members,  or  the  like.''     Instances 
of  this,   however,  had   occurred  before, 
of  which  I  have   mentioned  in  another 
place  the  grossest,  that  of  Floyd,  in  1621. 
The   lords,  in   March,  1642,  condemned 
one  Sandford,  a  tailor,  for  cursing  the 
parliament,  to  be  kept  at  work  in  Bride 
well  during  his  life,  besides  some  minor 
inflictions.    Rushworth.    A  strange  order 
was  made  by  the  commons,  Dec.  10. 1641, 
that  sir  William  Earl  having  given  infor 
mation  of  some  dangerous  words  spoken 
by  certain  persons,  the  speaker  shall  issue 
a  warrant  to  apprehend  such  persons  as 
sir  William  Earl  should  point  out. 

2  The  entry  of  this  in  the  Journals  is 
too  characteristic  of  the  tone  assumed  in 
the    commons    to    be  omitted.      u  This 
committee    [after  naming   some  of  the 
warmest  men]    is   appointed    to  prepare 
heads  for  a  conference  with  the  lords,  and 
to  acquaint  them  what  bills  this  house 
hath  passed   and   sent  up  to  their  lord 
ships,  which  much  concern  the  safety  of 
the  kingdom,  but  have  had  no  consent  of 
their  lordships  unto  them  ;  and  that  this 
house  being  the   representative  body  of 
the  whole  kingdom,  and  their  lordships 
being    but    as    particular    persons,  acd 
coming  to  parliament  in  a  particular  ca 
pacity,  that  if  they  shall  not  be  pleased 


to  consent  to  the  passing  of  those  acts 
and  others  necessary  to  the  preservation 
and  safety  of  the  kingdom,  that  then  this 
house,  together  with  such  of  the  lords 
that  are  more  sensible  of  the  safety  of 
the  kingdom,  may  join  together  and  rep 
resent  the  same  unto  his  majesty."  This 
was  on  December  3,  1641,  before  the 
argument  from  necessity  could  be  pre 
tended,  and  evidently  contains  the  germ 
of  the  resolution  of  February,  1649,  that 
the  house  of  lords  was  useless. 

The  resolution  was  moved  by  Mr.  Pym ; 
and  on  Mr.  Godolphin's  objecting,  very 
sensibly,  that  if  they  went  to  the  king 
with  the  lesser  part  of  the  lords,  the 
greater  part  of  the  lords  might  go  to  the 
king  with  the  lesser  part  of  them ,  he  was 
commanded  to  withdraw  (VerneyMS.); 
and  an  order  appears  on  the  Journals, 
that  on  Tuesday  next  the  house  would 
take  into  consideration  the  offence  now 
given  bywords  spoken  by  Mr.  Godolphin. 
Nothing  further,  however,  seems  to  have 
taken  place. 

3  This  was  carried  Jan.  27,  1642,  by  a 
majority  of  223  to  123,  the  largest  num 
ber,  I  think,  that  voted  for  any  question 
during  the  parliament.  Richmond  was 
an  eager  courtier,  and,  perhaps,  an  enemy 
to  the  constitution,  which  may  account 
for  the  unusual  majority  in  favor  of  his 
impeachment,  but  cannot  justify  it.  He 
had  merely  said,  on  a  proposition  to  ad 
journ,  ••  VHiy  should  we  not  adjourn  for 
six  months  ?  " 

i  Parl.  Hist.  1147,  1150  1188.  Claren 
don,  ii.  284,  346. 


CHA.  1.  — 1640-42.    CONDUCT   OF   THE  COMMONS.  141 

innovation  ; l  —  their  usurpation  at  once  of  the  judicial  and 
legislative  powers  in  all  that  related  to  the  church,  particu 
larly  by  their  committee  for  scandalous  ministers,  under 
which  denomination,  adding  reproach  to  injury,  they  subjected 
all  who  did  not  reach  the  standard  of  puritan  perfection  to 
contumely  and  vexation,  and  ultimately  to  expulsion  from 
their  lawful  property.-  Witness  the  impeachment  of  the 
twelve  bishops  for  treason,  on  account  of  their  protestation 
against  all  that  should  be  done  in  the  house  of  lords  during 
their  compelled  absence  through  fear  of  the  populace ;  a 
protest  not  perhaps  entirely  well  expressed,  but  abundantly 
justifiable  in  its  argument  by  the  plainest  principles  of 
law.3  These  great  abuses  of  power,  becoming  daily  more"\ 
frequent,  as  they  became  less  excusable,  would  make  a  sober  ; 
man  hesitate  to  support  them  in  a  civil  war.  wherein  their  i 
success  must  not  only  consummate  the  destruction  of  the 
crown,  the  church,  and  the  peerage,  but  expose  all  who  had 
dissented  from  their  proceedings,  as  it  ultimately  happened, 
to  an  oppression  less  severe  perhaps,  but  far  more  sweeping, 
than  that  which  had  rendered  the  star-chamber  odious. 

But  it  may  reasonably  also  be  doubted  whether,  in  staking 
their  own  cause  on  the  perilous  contingencies  of  war,  the 
house  of  commons  did  not  expose  the  liberties  for  which  they 
professedly  were  contending  to  a  far  greater  risk  than  they 

1  Clarendon,  322.     Among  other  peti-  them  only  mad,  and  proposed  that  they 
tions  presented    at    this  time  the  noble  should  be  sent  to  Bedlam  instead  of  the 
author  inserts   one  from  the  porters  of  Tower.      Even    Clarendon    bears    rather 
London.     Mr.  Brodie  asserts  of  this  that  hard  on  the  protest,  chiefly,  as  is  evident, 
'•  it  is  nowhere  to  be  found  or  alluded  to,  because  it  originated  with  Williams.     In 
so  far  as  I  recollect,  except  in  Clarendon's  fact,  several    of  these    prelates   had  not 
History  ;    and   I  have   no   hesitation   in  courage  to  stand  by  what  they  had  done, 
pronouncing  it  a  forgery  by  that  author  and  made  trivial  apologies.     Parl.  Hist, 
to  disgrace  the  petitions  which  so  galled  996.     Whether  the  violence  was  such  as 
him  and  his  party.     The  journals  of  the  to  form  a  complete  justification  for  their 
commons  give  an  account  of  every  peti-  absenting  themselves  is  a  question  of  fact 
tion;  and  I  have  gone  over  them  with,  the,  which  we  cannot  well  determine.     Three 
utmost  care,  in  order  to  ascertain  whether  bishops  continued  at  their  posts,  and  voted 
such  a  petition  ever  was  presented,  and  against  the  bill  for  removing  them  from 
yet  cannot  discover  a  trace  of  it."     (iii.  the  house  of  lords.     See  a  passage  from 
306.)     This  writer  is  here  too  precipitate.  Hall's    Hard   Measure,  in  Wordsworth's 
No  sensible  man  will  believe  Clarendon  Eccles.  Biogr.,  v.  317.     The  king  always 
to  have  committed  so  foolish  and  useless  entertained  a   notion  that  this  act   was 
a  forgery ;   and  this  petition  is  fully  no-  null  in  itself ;  and  in  one  of  his  procla- 
ticed,  though  not  inserted  at  length,  in  mations  from  York  not  very  judiciously 
the  journal  of  February  3d.  declares    his    intention   to  'preserve   the 

2  Nalson,  ii.  234,  245.  privileges  of  the  three  estates  of  parlia- 

3  The   bishops    had    so  few  friends  in  went.      The   lords   admitted  the  twelve 
the  house  of  commons  that  in  the  debate  bishops  to  bail  ;   but,  with   their  usual 
arising  out  of  this  protest  all  agreed  that  pusillanimity,  recommitted  them  on  the 
they  should  be  charged  with  treason,  ex-  commons'    expostulation.      Parl.    Hist. 
c«pt  one  gentleman,  who  said  he  thought  1092. 


1 42  •        CONDUCT   OF   THE   COMMONS.  CHAP.  IX. 

could  have  incurred  even  by  peace  with  an  insidious  court. 
For  let  any  one  ask  himself  what  would  have  been  the  con 
dition  of  the  parliament  if  by  the  extension  of  that  panic 
which  in  fact  seized  upon  several  regiments,  or  by  any  of 
those  countless  accidents  which  determine  the  fate  of  battles, 
the  king  had  wholly  defeated  their  army  at  Edgehill  ?  Is  it 
not  probable,  nay,  in  such  a  supposition,  almost  demonstrable, 
that  in  those  first  days  of  the  civil  war,  before  the  parliament 
had  time  to  discover  the  extent  of  its  own  resources,  he 
would  have  found  no  obstacle  to  his  triumphal  entry  into 
London  ?  And,  in  such  circumstances,  amidst  the  defection 
of  the  timid  and  lukewarm,  the  consternation  of  the  brawling 
multitude,  and  the  exultation  of  his  victorious  troops,  would 
the  triennial  act  itself,  or  those  other  statutes  which  he  had 
very  reluctantly  conceded,  have  stood  secure  ?  Or,  if  we  be 
lieve  that  the  constitutional  supporters  of  his  throne,  the  Hert- 
fords,  the  Falklands,  the  Southamptons,  the  Spencers,  would 
still  have  had  sufficient  influence  to  shield  from  violent  hands 
that  palladium  which  they  had  assisted  to  place  in  the  build 
ing,  can  there  be  a  stronger  argument  against  the  necessity  of 
taking  up  arms  for  the  defence  of  liberties,  which,  even  in 
the  contingency  of  defeat,  could  not  have  been  subverted  ? 

There  were  many  indeed  at  that  time,  as  there  have  been 
ever  since,  who,  admitting  all  the  calamities  incident  to  civil 
war,  of  which  this  country  reaped  the  bitter  fruits  for  twenty 
years,  denied  entirely  that  the  parliament  went  beyond  the 
necessary  precautions  for  self-defence,  and  laid  the  whole  guilt 
of  the  aggression  at  the  king's  door.  He  had  given,  it  was 
said,  so  many  proofs  of  a  determination  to  have  recourse  to 
arms,  he  had  displayed  so  insidious  an  hostility  to  the  privi 
leges  of  parliament,  that  if  he  should  be  quietly  allowed  to 
choose  and  train  soldiers  under  the  name  of  a  militia,  through 
hired  servants  of  his  own  nomination,  the  people  might  find 
themselves  either  robbed  of  their  liberties  by  surprise,  or 
compelled  to  struggle  for  them  in  very  unfavorable  circum 
stances.  The  commons,  with  more  loyal  respect  perhaps  than 
policy,  had  opposed  no  obstacle  to  his  deliberate  journey  to 
wards  the  north,  which  they  could  have  easily  prevented,1 
though  well  aware  that  he  had  no  other  aim  but  to  collect 

i  May.  p.  187.  insinuates  that  the  civil  been  in  their  power  to  have  secured  the 

war  should  have  been  prevented  by  more  king's  person   before  he   reached  York, 

vigorous   measures   on   the   part  of  the  But  the  majority  were  not  ripe  for  such 

parliament.    And  it  might  probably  have  violent  proceedings. 


CHA.  I.  — 1040-42.      CONDUCT   OF   THE  COMMONS.  143 

an  army  ;  was  it  more  than  ordinary  prudence  to  secure  the 
fortified  town  of  Hull  with  its  magazine  of  arms  from  his 
grasp,  and  to  muster  the  militia  in  each  county  under  the 
command  of  lieutenants  in  whom  they  could  confide,  and  to 
whom,  from  their  rank  and  personal  character,  he  could 
frame  no  just  objection  ? 

These  considerations  are  doubtless  not  without  weight,  and 
should  restrain  such  as  may  not  think  them  sufficient  from  too 
strongly  censuring  those  who,  deeming  that  either  civil  liberty 
or  the  ancient  constitution  must  be  sacrificed,  persisted  in  de 
priving  Charles  I.  of  every  power  which,  though  pertaining 
to  a  king  of  England,  he  could  not  be  trusted  to  exercise. 
We  are,  in  truth,  after  a  lapse  of  ages,  often  able  to  form  a 
better  judgment  of  the  course  that  ought  to  hav3  been  pur 
sued  in  political  emergencies  than  those  who  stood  nearest 
to  the  scene.  Not  only  have  we  our  knowledge  of  the  event 
to  guide  and  correct  our  imaginary  determinations,  but  we 
are  free  from  those  fallacious  rumors,  those  pretended  secrets, 
those  imperfect  and  illusive  views,  those  personal  preposses 
sions,  which  in  every  age  warp  the  political  conduct  of  the 
most  well-meaning.  The  characters  of  individuals,  so  fre 
quently  misrepresented  by  flattery  or  party  rage,  stand  out 
to  us  revealed  by  the  tenor  of  their  entire  lives,  or  by  the 
comparison  of  historical  anecdotes,  and  that  more  authentic 
information  which  is  reserved  for  posterity.  Looking  as  it 
were  from  an  eminence,  we  can  take  a  more  comprehensive 
range,  and  class  better  the  objects  before  us  in  their  due  pro 
portions  and  in  their  bearings  on  one  another.  It  is  not  easy 
for  us  even  now  to  decide,  keeping  in  view  the  maintenance 
of  the  entire  constitution,  from  which  party  in  the  civil  war 
greater  mischief  was  to  be  apprehended  ;  but  the  election 
was,  I  am  persuaded,  still  more  difficult  to  be  made  by  con 
temporaries.  No  one,  at  least,  who  has  given  any  time  to 
the  study  of  that  history  will  deny  that  among  those  who 
fought  in  opposite  battalions  at  Edgehill  and  Newbury,  or 
voted  in  the  opposite  parliaments  of  Westminster  and  Oxxford, 
there  were  many  who  thought  much  alike  on  general  theories 
of  prerogative  and  privilege,  divided  only  perhaps  by  some 
casual  prejudices,  which  had  led  these  to  look  with  greater 
distrust  on  courtly  insidionsness,  and  those  with  greater  in 
dignation  at  popular  violence.  We  cannot  believe  that  Falk 
land  and  Colepepper  differed  greatly  in  their  constitutional 


144  CONCESSIONS  OF  THE  KING.  CHAP.  IX. 

principles  from  Whitelock  and  Pierpoint,  or  that  Hertford 
and  Southampton  were  less  friends  to  a  limited  monarchy 
than  Essex  and  Northumberland. 

There  is,  however,  another  argument  sometimes  alleged  of 
late,  in  justification  of  the  continued  attacks  on  the  king's  au 
thority,  which  is  the  most  specious,  as  it  seems  to  appeal  to 
what  are  now  denominated  the  Whig  principles  of  the  con 
stitution.  It  has  been  said  that,  sensible  of  the  maladministra 
tion  the  nation  had  endured  for  so  many  years  (which,  if  the 
king  himself  were  to  be  deemed  by  constitutional  fiction  igno 
rant  of  it,  must  at  least  be  imputed  to  evil  advisers),  the 
house  of  commons  sought  only  that  security  which,  as  long 
as  a  sound  spirit  continues  to  actuate  its  members,  it  must 
ever  require  —  the  appointment  of  ministers  in  whose  fidelity 
to  the  public  liberties  it  could  better  confide  ;  that  by  carry 
ing  frankly  into  effect  those  counsels  which  he  had  unwisely 
abandoned  upon  the  earl  of  Bedford's  death,  and  bestowing 
the  responsible  offices  of  the  state  on  men  approved  for 
patriotism,  he  would  both  have  disarmed  the  jealousy  of  his 
subjects  and  insured  his  own  prerogative,  which  no  ministers 
are  prone  to  impair. 

Those  who  are  struck  by  these  considerations  may  not,  per 
haps,  have  sufficiently  reflected  on  the  changes  which  the 
king  had  actually  made  in  his  administration  since  the  begin 
ning  of  the  parliament.  Besides  those  already  mentioned, 
Essex,  Holland,  Say,  and  St.  John,  he  had,  in  the  autumn  of 
1641,  conferred  the  post  of  secretary  of  state  on  lord  Falk 
land,  and  that  of  master  of  the  rolls  on  sir  John  Colepepper, 
both  very  prominent  in  the  redress  of  grievances  and  punish 
ment  of  delinquent  ministers  during  the  first  part  of  the  ses 
sion,  and  whose  attachment  to  the  cause  of  constitutional  lib 
erty  there  was  no  sort  of  reason  to  distrust.  They  were  in 
deed  in  some  points  of  a  different  way  of  thinking  from  Pym 
and  Hampden,  and  had  doubtless  been  chosen  by  the  king  on 
that  account.  But  it  seems  rather  beyond  the  legitimate 
bounds  of  parliamentary  opposition  to  involve  the  kingdom 
in  civil  war,  simply  because  the  choice  of  the  crown  had  not 
fallen  on  its  leaders.  The  real  misfortune  was,  that  Charles 
did  not  rest  in  the  advice  of  his  own  responsible  ministers, 
against  none  of  whom  the  house  of  commons  had  any  just 
cause  of  exception.  The  theory  of  our  constitution  in  this 
respect  was  very  ill  established ;  and,  had  it  been  more  so, 


CHA.  I.  — 1640-42.     RELUCTANCE  OF  ROYALISTS  TO  ARM.    145 

there  are  perhaps  few  sovereigns,  especially  in  circumstances 
of  so  much  novelty,  who  would  altogether  conform  to  it.  But 
no  appointment  that  he  could  have  made  from  the  patriotic 
band  of  parliament  would  have  furnished  a  security  against 
the  intrigues  of  his  bedchamber,  or  the  influence  of  the 
queen. 

The  real  problem  that  we  have  to  resolve,  as  to  the  politi 
cal  justice  of  the  civil  war,  is  not  the  character,  the  past  actions, 
or  even  the  existing  designs  of  Charles  ;  not  even  whether 
he  had  as  justly  forfeited  his  crown  as  his  son  was  deemed  to 
have  done  for  less  violence  and  less  insincerity  ;  not  even,  I 
will  add,  whether  the  liberties  of  his  subjects  could  have  been 
absolutely  secure  under  his  government ;  but  v,  aether  the  risk 
attending  his  continuance  upon  the  throne  with  the  limited 
prerogatives  of  an  English  sovereign  were  great  enough  to 
counterbalance  the  miseries  of  protracted  civil  war,  the  perils 
of  defeat,  and  the  no  less  perils,  as  experience  showed,  of 
victory.  Those  who  adopt  the  words  spoken  by  one  of  our 
greatest  orators,  and  quoted  by  another,  "  There  was  ambi 
tion,  there  was  sedition,  there  was  violence  ;  but  no  man  shall 
persuade  me  that  it  was  not  the  cause  of  liberty  on  one  side, 
and  of  tyranny  on  the  other,"  have  for  themselves  decided 
this  question.1  But  as  I  know  (and  the  history  of  eighteen 
years  is  my  witness)  how  little  there  was  on  one  side  of  such 
liberty  as  a  wise  man  would  hold  dear,  so  I  am  not  yet  con 
vinced  that  the  great  body  of  the  royalists,  the  peers  and 
gentry  of  England,  were  combating  for  the  sake  of  tyranny. 
1  cannot  believe  them  to  have  so  soon  forgotten  their  almost 
unanimous  discontent  at  the  king's  arbitrary  government  in 
1G40,  or  their  general  concurrence  in  the  first  salutary  meas 
ures  of  the  parliament.  I  cannot  think  that  the  temperate 
and  constitutional  language  of  the  royal  declarations  and  an 
swers  to  the  house  of  commons  in  1G42,  known  to  have  pro 
ceeded  from  the  pen  of  Hyde,  and  as  superior  to  those  on 
the  opposite  side  in  argument  as  they  are  in  eloquence,  was 
intended  for  the  willing  slaves  of  tyranny.  I  cannot  discover 
in  the  extreme  reluctance  of  the  royalists  to  take  up  arms, 
and  their  constant  eagerness  for  an  accommodation  (I  speak 
not  of  mere  soldiers,  but  of  the  greater  and  more  important 

i  These  words  are    ascribed    to    lord    on  the  History  of  tlie  English  Govern- 
Chatham.  in  a  speech  of  Mr.  Grattan.  ac-    ment,  p.  55. 
cording  to  lord  John  Russell,  in  his  Essay 
VOL.    II.  10 


146          EFFECT   OF   THE  KING'S   CONCESSIONS.        CHAP.  IX. 

portion  of  that  party),  that  zeal  for  the  king's  reestablish- 
ment  in  all  his  abused  prerogatives  which  some  connect  with 
the  very  names  of  a  royalist  or  a  cavalier.1 

It  is  well  observed  by  Burnet,  in  answer  to  the  vulgar 
notion  that  Charles  I.  was  undone  by  his  concessions,  that, 
but  for  his  concessions,  he  would  have  had  no  party  at  all. 
This  is,  in  fact,  the  secret  of  what  seems  to  astonish  the 
parliamentary  historian,  May,  of  the  powerful  force  that  the 
king  was  enabled  to  raise,  and  the  protracted  resistance  he 
opposed.  He  had  succeeded,  according  to  the  judgment  of 
many  real  friends  of  the  constitution,  in  putting  the  house 
of  commons  in  the  wrong.  Law,  justice,  moderation,  once 
ranged  against  him,  had  gone  over  to  his  banner.  His  arms 
might  reasonably  be  called  defensive,  if  he  had  no  other 
means  of  preserving  himself  from  the  condition,  far  worse 
than  captivity,  of  a  sovereign  compelled  to  a  sort  of  suicide 
upon  his  own  honor  and  authority.  For,  however  it  may  be 
alleged  that  a  king  is  bound  in  conscience  to  sacrifice  his 
power  to  the  public  will,  yet  it  could  hardly  be  inexcusable 
not  to  have  practised  this  disinterested  morality ;  especially 
while  the  voice  of  his  people  was  by  no  means  unequivocal, 

1  Clarendon  has  several  remarkable  ing  certain  persons  in  each  county  to 
passages,  chiefly  towards  the  end  of  the  raise  troops,  was  in  fact  issued  iinme- 
fifth  book  of  his  History,  on  the  slowness  diately  after  this  declaration.  It  is  rather 
and  timidity  of  the  royalist  party  before  mortifying  to  find  lord  Falkland's  name, 
the  commencement  of  the  civil  war.  The  not  to  mention  others,  in  this  list;  but 
peers  at  York,  forming,  in  fact,  a  majority  he  probably  felt  it  impossible  to  refuse  his 
of  the  upper  house  —  for  there  were  nearly  signature,  without  throwing  discredit  on 
forty  of  them  — displayed  much  of  this,  the  king;  and  no  man  engaged  in  a  party 
Want  of  political  courage  was  a  charac-  ever  did,  or  ever  can,  act  with  absolute 
teristic  of  our  aristocracy  at  this  period,  sincerity  ;  or  at  least  he  can  be  of  no  use 
bravely  as  many  behaved  in  the  field,  to  his  friends  if  he  does  adhere  to  this 
But  I  have  no  doubt  that  a  real  jealousy  uncompromising  principle, 
of  the  king's  intentions  had  a  consider-  The  commission  of  array  was  ill  re- 
able  effect.  ceived  by  many  of  the  king's  friends,  as 

They  put  forth  a  declaration,  signed  not  being  conformable  to  law.  Claren- 
by  all  their  hands,  on  the  loth  of  June,  don,  iii.  91.  Certainly  it  was  not  so;  but 
1642,  professing  before  God  their  full  per-  it  was  justifiable  as  the  means  of  opposing 
suasion  that  the  king  had  no  design  to  the  parliament's  ordinance  for  the  militia, 
make  war  on  the  parliament,  and  that  at  least  equally  illegal.  This,  however, 
they  saw  no  color  of  preparations  or  shows  very  strongly  the  cautious  and 
counsels  that  might  reasonably  beget  a  constitutional  temper  of  many  of  the 
belief  of  any  such  designs;  but  that  all  royalists,  who  could  demur  about  the 
his  endeavors  tended  to  the  settlement  legality  of  a  measure  of  necessity,  since 
of  the  protcstant  religion,  the  just  privi-  no  other  method  of  raising  an  army 
leges  of  parliament,  the  liberty  of  the  would  have  been  free  from  similar  excep- 
subject,  &c.  This  was  an  ill-judged  and  tion.  The  same  reluctance  to  enter  on 
even  absurd  piece  of  hypocrisy,  calculated  the  war  was  displayed  in  the  propositions 
to  degrade  the  subscribers,  since  the  for  peace,  which  the  king,  inconsequence 
design  of  raising  troops  was  hardly  con-  of  his  council's  importunity,  sent  to  the 
cealed,  and  every  part  of  the  king's  con-  two  houses  through  the  earl  of  South- 
duct  since  his  arrival  at  York  manifested  ampton,  just  before  he  raised  his  stand- 
it.  The  commission  of  array,  authoriz-  ard  at  ^Nottingham. 


CHA.  I.  — 1040-42.        CLARENDON'S   OPIXIOX.  147 

and  while  the  major  part  of  one  house  of  parliament  adhered 
openly  to  his  cause.1 

It  is  indeed  a  question  perfectly  distinguishable  from  that 
of  the  abstract  justice  of  the  king's  cause,  whether  he  did 
not  too  readily  abandon  his  post  as  a  constitutional  head  of 
the  parliament ;  whether,  with  the  greater  part  of  the  peers 
and  a  very  considerable  minority  in  the  commons,  resisting 
in  their  places  at  Westminster  all  violent  encroachments  on 
his  rights,  he  ought  not  rather  to  have  sometimes  persisted  in 
a  temperate  though  firm  assertion  of  them,  sometimes  had  re 
course  to  compromise  and  gracious  concesj  ion,  instead  of  call 
ing  away  so  many  of  his  adherents  to  join  his  arms  as  left 
neither  numbers  nor  credit  with  those  who  remained.  There 
is  a  remarkable  passage  in  lord  Clarendon's  Life,  not  to 
quote  Whitelock  and  other  writers  less  favorable  to  Charles, 
where  he  intimates  his  own  opinion  that  the  king  would 
have  had  a  fair  hope  of  withstanding  the  more  violent 
faction,  if,  after  the  queen's  embarkation  for  Holland,  in 
February,  1642,  he  had  returned  to  Whitehall ;  admitting, 
at  the  same  time,  the  hazards  and  inconveniences  to  which 
this  course  was  liable.2  That  he  resolved  on  trying  the 
fortune  of  arms,  his  noble  historian  insinuates  to  have  been 
the  effect  of  the  queen's  influence,  with  whom  before  her 
departure  he  had  concerted  his  future  proceedings.  Yet,  not 
withstanding  the  deference  owing  to  contemporary  opinions, 
I  cannot  but  suspect  that  Clarendon  has,  in  this  instance  as 
in  some  other  passages,  attached  too  great  an  importance  to 
particular  individuals,  measuring  them  rather  by  their  rank 
in  the  state  than  by  that  capacity  and  energy  of  mind, 
which,  in  the  levelling  hour  of  revolution,  are  the  only  real 
pledges  of  political  influence.  He  thought  it  of  the  utmost 
consequence  to  the  king  that  he  should  gain  over  the  earls 
of  Essex  and  Northumberland,  both,  or  at  least  the  former, 
wavering  between  the  two  parties,  though  voting  entirely 
with  the  commons.  Certainly  the  king's  situation  required 
every  aid,  and  his  repulsive  hardness  towards  all  who  had 
ever  given  him  offence  displayed  an  obstinate  unconciliating 

l  According   to   a   list    made    by   the  mencement  of  the  war,  and  five  or  six 

house  of  lords,  May  25,  1642,  the  peers  afterwards  ;  two  or  three  of  those  at  York 

with  the  king  at  York  were  thirty-two  ;  returned.     During  the  war  there  were  at 

those    who    remained    at    Westminster,  the  outside  thirty  peers  who  sat  iu  the 

forty-two.     But  of  the  latter,  more  than  parliament, 

ten  joined  the  others   before   the  com-  -  Life  of  Clarendon,  p.  56. 


148  COMMENCEMENT   OF   CIVIL  WAR.          CHAP.  IX. 

character  which  deprived  him  of  some  support  he  might 
have  received.  But  the  subsequent  history  of  these  two 
celebrated  earls,  and  indeed  of  all  the  moderate  adherents  to 
the  parliament,  will  hardly  lead  us  to  believe  that  they 
could  have  afforded  the  king  any  protection.  Let  us  sup 
pose  that  he  had  returned  to  Whitehall  instead  of  proceeding 
towards  the  north.  It  is  evident  that  he  must  either  have 
passed  the  bill  for  the  militia  or  seen  the  ordinances  of  both 
houses  carried  into  effect  without  his  consent.  He  must 
have  consented  to  the  abolition  of  episcopacy,  or  at  least 
have  come  into  some  compromise  which  would  have  left  the 
bishops  hardly  a  shadow  of  their  jurisdiction  and  pre 
eminence.  Pie  must  have  driven  from  his  person  those 
whom  he  best  loved  and  trusted.  He  would  have  found 
it  impossible  to  see  again  the  queen  without  awakening 
distrust  and  bringing  insult  on  them  both.  The  royalist 
minority  of  parliament,  however  considerable  in  numbers, 
wras  lukewarm  and  faint-hearted.  That  they  should  have 
gained  strength  so  as  to  keep  a  permanent  superiority  over 
their  adversaries,  led  as  they  were  by  statesmen  so  bold 
and  profound  as  Hampden,  Pym,  St.  John,  Cromwell,  and 
Vane,  is  what,  from  the  experience  of  the  last  twelve  months, 
it  was  unreasonable  to  anticipate.  But  even  if  the  commons 
had  been  more  favorably  inclined,  it  would  not  have  been  in 
their  power  to  calm  the  mighty  waters  that  had  been  moved 
from  their  depths.  They  had  permitted  the  populace  to 
mingle  in  their  discussions,  testifying  pleasure  at  its  paltry 
applause,  and  encouraging  its  tumultuous  aggressions  on  the 
minority  of  the  legislature.  What  else  could  they  expect 
than  that,  so  soon  as  they  ceased  to  satisfy  the  city 
apprentices,  or  the  trained  bands  raised  under  their  militia 
bill,  they  must  submit  to  that  physical  strength  which  is  the 
ultimate  arbiter  of  political  contentions  ? 

Thus,  with  evil  auspices,  with  much  peril  of  despotism  on 
the  one  hand,  with  more  of  anarchy  on  the  other,  amidst  the 
apprehensions  and  sorrows  of  good  men,  the  civil  war  com 
menced  in  the  summer  of  1642.  I  might  now  perhaps  pass 
over  the  period  that  intervened,  until  the  restoration  of 
Charles  II.,  as  not  strictly  belonging  to  a  work  which  under 
takes  to  relate  the  progress  of  the  English  constitution.  But 
this  would  have  left  a  sort  of  chasm  that  might  disappoint 
the  reader  ;  and  as  I  have  already  not  wholly  excluded  our 


CHA.  I.  — 1040-42.     COMMENCEMENT  OF  CIVIL  WAR.  149 


more  general  political  history,  without  a  knowledge  of  which 
the  laws  and  government  of  any  people  must  be  unin 
telligible,  it  will  probably  not  be  deemed  an  unnecessary 
digression,  if  I  devote  one  chapter  to  the  most  interesting 
and  remarkable  portion  of  British  story. 


150  THE   CIVIL   WAR.  CHAP.  X. 


CHAPTER    X. 

FROM     THE     BREAKING     OUT    OF    THE    CIVIL    WAR     TO    THE 
RESTORATION. 


PART   I. 

Success  of  the  King  in  the  first  part  of  the  War  —  Efforts  by  the  Moderate  Party 
for  Peace  —  Affair  at  Brentford  —  Treaty  of  Oxford  —  Impeachment  of  the  Queen 

—  Waller's  Plot  —  Secession  of  some  Peers  to  the  King's  Quarters  -  -  Their  Treat 
ment  there  impolitic — The  Anti-pacific  Party  gain  the  ascendant  at  Westminster 

—  The  Parliament  makes  a  new  Great  Seal  —  And  takes  the  Covenant — Persecu 
tion  of  the  Clergy  who  refuse  it — Impeachment  and  Execution  of  Laud  —  Decline 
of  the   King's  Affairs  in  1644 — Factions  at  Oxford — Royalist  Lords  and  Com 
moners  summoned  to  that  City  —  Treaty  of  Uxbridge  —  Impossibility  of  Agree 
ment —  The  Parliament  insist  on  unreasonable  Terms  —  Miseries  of  the  War  — 
Essex  and  Manchester  suspected  of  Lukewarmness — Self-denying  Ordinance  — 
Battle  of  Naseby  — Desperate  Condition  of  the  King's  Affairs  —  He  throws  him 
self  into  the  hands  of  the  Scots  —  His  Struggles  to  preserve  Episcopacy,  against 
the  advice  of  the  Queen  and  others  —  Bad  Conduct  of  the  Queen  —  Publication  of 
Letters  taken  at  Naseby  —  Discovery  of  Glamorgan's  Treaty  —  King  delivered  up 
by  the  Scots  —  Growth  of  the  Independents  and  Republicans  —  Opposition  to  the 
Presbyterian  Government  —  Toleration  —  Intrigues  of  the  Army  with  the  King  — 
His  Person  seized  —  The  Parliament  yield  to  the  Army  —  Mysterious  Conduct  of 
Cromwell  —  Imprudent   Hopes  of  the   King — He  rejects  the   Proposals  of  the 
Army  —  His  Flight  from  Hampton  Court  —  Alarming  Votes  against  him  —  Scots' 
Invasion  —  The   Presbyterians   regain   the   Ascendant  —  Treaty   of    Newport  — 
Gradual  Progress  of  a  Republican  Party  —  Scheme  among  the  Officers  of  bringing 
Charles  to  Trial  —  This  is  finally  determined — Seclusion  of  Presbyterian  Mem 
bers  —  Motives  of  some  of  the  King's  Judges  —  Question  of  his  Execution  Dis 
cussed —  His  Character  —  Icon  Basilike. 

FACTIONS  that,  while  still  under  some  restraint  from  the 
forms  at  least  of  constitutional  law,  excite  our  disgust  by  their 
selfishness  or  intemperance,  are  little  likely  to  redeem  their 
honor  when  their  animosities  have  kindled  civil  warfare.  If 
it  were  difficult  for  an  upright  man  to  enlist  with  an  entire 
willingness  under  either  the  royalist  or  the  parliamentarian 
banner  at  the  commencement  of  hostilities  in  1642,  it  became 
far  less  easy  for  him  to  desire  the  complete  success  of  one  or 
the  other  cause,  as  advancing  time  displayed  the  faults  of 
both  in  darker  colors  than  they  had  previously  worn.  Of 
the  parliament  —  to  begin  with  the  more  powerful  and  vic 
torious  party  —  it  may  be  said,  I  think,  with  not  greater  se 
verity  than  truth,  that  scarce  two  or  three  public  acts  of  jus 
tice,  humanity,  or  generosity,  and  very  few  of  political  wisdom 


CHA.  I. —1642-49.       THE   KING'S   SUCCESS.  151 

or  courage,  are  recorded  of  them  from  their  quarrel  with  the 
king  to  their  expulsion  by  Cromwell. 

Notwithstanding  the  secession  from  parliament  before  the 
commencement  of  the  war  of  nearly  all  the  peers  who  could 
be  reckoned  on  the  king's  side,  and  of  a  pretty  considerable 
part  of  the  commons,  there  still  continued  to  sit  at  Westmin 
ster  many  sensible  and  moderate  persons,  who  thought  that 
they  could  not  serve  their  country  better  than  by  remaining 
at  their  posts,  and  labored  continually  to  bring  about  a  paci 
fication  by  mutual  concessions.  Such  were  the  earls  of  Nor 
thumberland,  Holland,  Lincoln,  and  Bedford,  among  the 
peers ;  Selden,  Whitelock,  Hollis,  Waller,  Pierpoint,  and 
Rudyard,  in  the  commons.  These,  however,  would  have 
formed  but  a  very  ineffectual  minority  if  the  war  itself,  for 
at  least  twelve  months,  had  not  taken  a  turn  little  expected 
by  the  parliament.  The  hard  usage  Charles  seemed  to  en 
dure  in  so  many  encroachments  on  his  ancient  prerogative 
awakened  the  sympathies  of  a  generous  aristocracy,  accus 
tomed  to  respect  the  established  laws,  and  to  love  monarchy, 
as  they  did  their  own  liberties,  on  the  score  of  its  prescrip 
tive  title  ;  averse  also  to  the  rude  and  morose  genius  of  puri- 
tanism,  and  not  a  little  jealous  of  those  upstart  demagogues 
who  already  threatened  to  subvert  the  graduated  pyramid  of 
English  society.  Their  zeal  placed  the  King  at  the  head  of 
a  far  more  considerable  army  than  either  party  had  antici 
pated.1  In  the  first  battle,  that  of  Edgehill,  though 
he  did  not  remain  master  of  the  field,  yet  all  the  theklnVin 
military  consequences  were  evidently  in  his  favor.'2  the  first  part 

T        |      J          .  .  /•    -,  r.  <  .->      i  of  the  war. 

In  the  ensuing  campaign  ot  1643,  the  advantage 
was  for  several  months  entirely  his  own,  nor  could  he  be  said 
to  be  a  loser  on  the  whole  result,  notwithstanding  some  re 
verse*  that  accompanied  the  autumn.  A  line  drawn  from 
Hull  to  Southampton  would  suggest  no  very  incorrect  idea 
of  the  two  parties,  considered  as  to  their  military  occupation 

1  May,  p.  165.  its  consequences  :  •'  Our  army,  after  some 

2  Both  sides  claimed  the  victory.   May.  refreshment    at   Warwick,    returned    to 
who  thinks  that  Essex,  by  his  injudicious  London,  not  like  men  that  had  obtained 
conduct  after  the  battle,  lost  the  advan-  a  victory,  but  as  if  they  had  been  beat- 
tage  he  had  gained  in  it,  admits  that  the  en,'-  p.  "52.     This  shows   that   they  had 
effect  was  to  strengthen  the  king's  side,  not,  in  fact,  obtained  much  of  a  victory; 
"Those  who  thought  his  success  impos-  and  lord  Whartoivs  report  to  parliament 
sible  began  to  look  upon  him  as  one  who  almost  leads  us  to  think  the  advantage, 
might  be  a  conqueror,  and  many  neuters  \ipon  the  whole,  to  have  beea  with  the 
joined  him."  p.  176.      Ludlow  is  of  the  king.     Parl.  Hist.  ii.  1495. 

same  opinion  as  to  Essex's  behavior  and 


152  EFFORTS   FOR  PEACE.  CHAP.  X. 

of  the  kingdom,  at  the  beginning  of  September,  1 643  ;  for  if 
the  parliament,  by  the  possession  of  Gloucester  and  Ply 
mouth,  and  by  some  force  they  had  on  foot  in  Cheshire  and 
other  midland  parts,  kept  their  ground  on  the  west  of  this 
line,  this  was  nearly  compensated  by  the  earl  of  Newcastle's 
possession  at  that  time  of  most  of  Lincolnshire,  which  lay 
within  it.  Such  was  the  temporary  effect,  partly  indeed  of 
what  may  be  called  the  fortune  of  war,  but  rather  of  the  zeal 
and  spirit  of  the  royalists,  and  of  their  advantage  in  a  more 
numerous  and  intrepid  cavalry.1 

It  has  been  frequently  supposed,  and  doubtless  seems  to 
have  been  a  prevailing  opinion  at  the  time,  that  if  the  king, 
instead  of  sitting  down  before  Gloucester  at  the  end  of  Au 
gust,  had  marched  upon  London,  combining  his  operations 
with  Newcastle's  powerful  army,  he  would  have  brought  the 
war  to  a  triumphant  conclusion.2  In  these  matters  men 
judge  principally  by  the  event.  Whether  it  would  have 
been  prudent  in  Newcastle  to  have  left  behind  him  the  strong 
garrison  of  Hull  under  Fairfax,  and  an  unbroken  though  in 
ferior  force  commanded  by  lord  Willoughby  and  Cromwell  in 
Lincolnshire,  I  must  leave  to  military  critics  ;  suspecting, 
however,  that  he  would  have  found  it  difficult  to  draw  away 
the  Yorkshire  gentry  and  yeomanry,  forming  the  strength  of 
his  army,  from  their  unprotected  homes.  Yet  the  parliamen 
tary  forces  were  certainly,  at  no  period  of  the  war,  so  deficient 
in  numbers,  discipline,  and  confidence ;  and  it  may  well  be 
thought  that  the  king's  want  of  permanent  resources,  with 
his  knowledge  of  the  timidity  and  disunion  which  prevailed 
in  the  capital,  rendered  the  boldest  and  most  forward  game 
his  true  policy. 

It  was    natural    that    the    moderate  party   in    parliament 


1  May,  212.     Baillie,  373,  391  such  as  the  king's  army,  with  its  weak 

'-'  May.  Baillie,  Mrs.    Hutchinson,  are  cavalry   and    bad    artillery,    could    not 

as   much  of  this  opinion  as   sir   Philip  easily  have  carried.     Lord  Sunderland, 

Warwick  and  other  royalist  writers.     It  four  days  before  the  battle  of  Newbury, 

is   certain   that  there  was  a  prodigious  wherein  he  was  killed,  wrote  to  his  wife, 

alarm,  and  almost  despondency,  among  that  the  king's  affairs  had  never  been  in 

the  parliamentarians.     They  immediate-  a  more  prosperous  condition  ;  that  sitting 

ly  began  to  make  intrenchinents  about  down   before   Gloucester  had   prevented 

London,  which  were  finished  in  a  month,  their  finishing  the  war  that  year,  '•  which 

May,  p.  214.     In  the  Somers  Tracts,  iv.  nothing  could  keep  us  from  doing,  if  we 

534,  is  an  interesting  letter  from  a  Scots-  had    a    month's    more    time."      Sidney 

man  then  in  London,  giving  an  account  Letters,  ii.  671.     He  alludes  in  the  same 

of  these  fortifications,  which,  considering  letters   to   the   divisions  in   the   royalist 

the  short   time  employed  about  them,  party, 
seem  to  have  been  very  respectable,  and 


CHA.  I.  —  1G42-49.         TREATY  AT   OXFORD.  153 

should    acquire    strength    by   the    untoward    fortune   of  its 
arms.     Their  aim,  as  well  as  that  of  the  constitu 
tional  royalists,  was  a  speedy  pacification  ;  neither  tiie°mode^ate 
party  so  much  considering  what   terms  mio;ht  be  Party for 

1        ^  .°  ...  i  •    i  peace. 

most  advantageous  to  their  own  side,  as  which  way 
the  nation  might  be  freed  from  an  incalculably  protracted 
calamity.  On  the  king's  advance  to  Colnbrook,  in  Novem 
ber,  1G42,  the  two  houses  made  an  overture  for  negotiation,  on 
which  he  expressed  his  readiness  to  enter.  But,  Affair  at 
during  the  parley,  some  of  his  troops  advanced  to  Brentford. 
Brentford,  and  a  sharp  action  took  place  in  that  town.  The 
parliament  affected  to  consider  this  such  a  mark  of  perfidy  and 
blood-thirstiness  as  justified  them  in  breaking  off  the  treaty,  a 
step  to  which  they  were  doubtless  more  inclined  by  the  king's 
retreat,  and  their  discovery  that  his  army  was  less  formidable 
than  they  had  apprehended.  It  is  very  probable,  or  rather 
certain,  even  from  Clarendon's  account,  that  many  about  the 
king,  if  not  himself,  were  sufficiently  indisposed  to  negotiate ; 
yet,  as  no  cessation  of  arms  had  been  agreed  upon,  or  even 
proposed,  he  cannot  be  said  to  have  waived  the  unquestion 
able  right  of  every  belligerent  to  obtain  all  possible  advan 
tage  by  arms,  in  order  to  treat  for  peace  in  a  more  favorable 
position.  But,  as  mankind  are  seldom  reasonable  in  admit 
ting  such  maxims  against  themselves,  he  seems  to  have  in 
jured  his  reputation  by  this  affair  of  Brentford. 

A  treaty,  from  which  many  ventured  to  hope  much,  was 
begun  early  in  the  next  spring  at  Oxford,  after  a  Treaty  at 
struggle  which  had  lasted  through  the  winter  within  °xford- 
the  walls  of  parliament.1  But  though  the  party  of  Pym  and 
Ilampden  at  Westminster  were  not  able  to  prevent  negotia 
tion  against  the  strong  bent  of  the  house  of  lords,  and  even 
of  the  city,  which  had  been  taught  to  lower  its  tone  by  the 
interruption  of  trade,  and  especially  of  the  supply  of  coals 
from  Newcastle,  yet  they  were  powerful  enough  to  make  the 
houses  insist  on  terms  not  less  unreasonable  than  those  con 
tained  in  their  nineteen  propositions  the  year  before.'2  The 

1  Parl.    Hist.    iii.   45,    48.       It    seems  is  to  be  considered,  on  the  other  hand, 

natural  to  think  that,  if  the  moderate  that  the  king  could  never  have  raised  an 

party    were    able    to    contend    so    well  army,  if  he  had  not  been  able  to  rally 

apiinst  their  opponents,  after  the  deser-  the  peers  and  gentry  round  his  banner, 

tiou  of  a  great  many  royalist  members  and  that  in  his  army  lay  the  real  secret 

who   had  joined   the   king,    they  would  of  the  temporary  strength  of  the  pacific 

have  maintained  a  decisive  majority,  had  party, 
these  continued  in  their  places.    But  it        2  i>arl.  Hist.  iii.  68,  94.      Clarendon, 


154  TREATY  AT  OXFORD.          CHAP.  X. 

king  could  not  be  justly  expected  to  comply  with  these  ;  but, 
had  they  been  more  moderate,  or  if  the  parliament  would 
have  in  some  measure  receded  from  them,  we  have  every 
reason  to  conclude,  both  by  the  nature  of  the  terms  he  pro 
posed  in  return,  and  by  the  positive  testimony  of  Clarendon, 
that  he  would  not  have  come  sincerely  into  any  scheme  of 
immediate  accommodation.  The  reason  assigned  by  that 
author  for  the  unwillingness  of  Charles  to  agree  on  a  cessa 
tion  of  arms  during  the  negotiation,  though  it  had  been  orig 
inally  suggested  by  himself  (and  which  reason  would  have 
been  still  more  applicable  to  a  treaty  of  peace),  is  one  so 
strange  that  it  requires  all  the  authority  of  one  very  unwilling 
to  confess  any  weakness  or  duplicity  of  the  king  to  be  be 
lieved.  He  had  made  a  solemn  promise  to  the  queen  on  her 
departure  for  Holland  the  year  before,  "  that  he  would  re 
ceive  no  person  who  had  disserved  him  into  any  favor  or 
trust,  without  her  privity  and  consent ;  and  that,  as  she  had 
undergone  many  reproaches  and  calumnies  at  the  entrance 
into  the  war,  so  he  would  never  make  any  peace  but  by  her 
interposition  and  mediation,  that  the  kingdom  might  receive 
that  blessing  only  from  her."  l  Let  this  be  called,  as  the 
reader  may  please,  the  extravagance  of  romantic  affection,  or 
rather  the  height  of  pusillanimous  and  criminal  subserviency, 
we  cannot  surely  help  acknowledging  that  this  one  marked 
weakness  in  Charles's  character,  had  there  been  nothing  else 
to  object,  rendered  the  return  of  cordial  harmony  between 
himself  and  his  people  scarce  within  the  bounds  of  natural 
possibility.  In  the  equally  balanced  condition  of  both  forces 


May,  Whitolock.  If  we  believe  the  last  urged  by  Hyde.  That  peer  was,  at  this 
(p.  68),  the  king,  who  took  as  usual  a  time,  and  for  several  months  afterwards, 
very  active  part  in  the  discussions  upon  inclining  to  come  over  to  the  king  ;  but, 
this  treaty,  would  frequently  have  been  on  the  bad  success  of  Holland  and  Bed- 
inclined  to  come  into  an  adjustment  of  ford  in  their  change  of  sides,  he  gave 
terms;  if  some  of  the  more  warlike  into  the  opposite  course  of  politics,  and 
spirits  about  him  (glancing  apparently  joined  the  party  of  lords  Say  and  Whar- 
at  Rupert)  had  not  over-persuaded  his  ton,  in  determined  hostility  to  the  king, 
better  judgment.  This,  however,  does  Dr.  Lingard  has  lately  thrown  doubts 
not  accord  with  what  Clarendon  tells  us  upon  this  passage  in  Clarendon,  but 
of  the  queen ;s  secret  influence,  nor  in-  upon  grounds  which  I  do  not  clearly 
deed  with  all  we  have  reason  to  believe  understand.  Hist,  of  England,  x.  208, 
of  the  king's  disposition  during  the  note.  That  no  vestige  of  its  truth 
war.  should  appear,  as  he  observes,  in  the 
l  Life  of  Clarendon,  p.  79.  This  in-  private  correspondence  between  Charles 
duced  the  king  to  find  pretexts  for  avoid-  and  his  consort  (if  he  means  the  letters 
ing  the  cessation,  and  was  the  real  cause  taken  at  Naseby,  and  I  know  no  other), 
of  his  refusal  to  restore  the  earl  of  Nor-  is  not  very  singular ;  as  the  whole  of 
thumberland  to  his  post  of  lord  admiral  that  correspondence  is  of  a  much  later 
during  this  treaty  of  Oxford,  which  was  date. 


CHA.  I.  — 1642-49.     IMPEACHMENT   OF   THE   QUEEN.  155 

at  this  particular  juncture,  it  may  seem  that  some  compromise 
on  the  great  question  of  the  militia  was  not  impracticable, 
had  the  king  been  truly  desirous  of  accommodation  ;  for  it  is 
only  just  to  remember  that  the  parliament  had  good  reason  to 
demand  some  security  for  themselves,  when  he  had  so  peremp 
torily  excluded  several  persons  from  amnesty.  Both  parties, 
in  truth,  were  standing  out  for  more  than  either  according  to 
their  situation  as  belligerents,  or  even  perhaps  according 
to  the  principles  of  our  constitution,  they  could  reasonably 
claim ;  the  two  houses  having  evidently  no  direct  right  to 
order  the  military  force,  nor  the  king,  on  the  other  hand, 
having  a  clear  prerogative  to  keep  on  foot  an  army,  which  is 
not  easily  distinguishable  from  a  militia,  without  consent  of 
parliament.  The  most  reasonable  course  apparently  would 
have  been  for  the  one  to  have  waived  a  dangerous  and  dis 
puted  authority,  and  the  other  to  have  desisted  from  a  still 
more  unconstitutional  pretension,  which  was  done  by  the  bill 
of  rights  in  1 689.  The  kingdom  might  have  well  dispensed, 
in  that  age,  with  any  military  organization,  and  this  seems  to 
have  been  the  desire  of  Whitelock,  and  probably  of  other 
reasonable  men.  But,  unhappily,  when  swords  are  once 
drawn  in  civil  war,  they  are  seldom  sheathed  till  experience 
has  shown  which  blade  is  the  sharper. 

Though  this  particular  instance  of  the  queen's  prodigious 
ascendency  over  her  husband  remained  secret  till  the  publi 
cation  of  lord  Clarendon's  Life,  it  was  in  general  well  known, 
and  put   the  leaders  of  the  commons  on  a  remarkable  stroke 
of  policy,  in   order  to  prevent  the  renewal  of  negotiations. 
On   her  landing   in  the  north,  with  a  supply  of  impeach. 
money  and  arms,  as  well  as  with  a  few  troops  she  ment  of 
had  collected   in  Holland,  they  carried  up  to  the  the  quee 
lords  an  impeachment    for  high  treason  against  her.     This 
measure  (so  obnoxious  was  Henrietta)  met  with   a  less  vig 
orous  opposition  than  might  be  expected,  though  the  moder 
ate  party  was   still  in  considerable  force.1     It  was  not  only 

1  I  cannot   discover  in   the   Journals  Martin  with  his  usual  fury  and  rudeness, 

any  division  on  this  impeachment.     But  The  first  of  these  carried  up  the  impeach- 

llollis  inveighs  against  it  in  his  memoirs  ment  to  the  house  of  lords. 
as  one  of  the  flagrant  acts  of  St.  John's         This  impeachment  was  not  absolutely 

party  :  and  there  is  an  account  of  the  lost  sight  of  for  some  time.    In  January, 

debate   on   this   subject  in   the    Somers  1644,  the  lords  appointed  a  committee 

Tracts,  v.  500 :  whence  it  appears  that  to    consider   what    mode   of   proceeding 

it    was    opposed    by   Maynard,    Waller,  for  bringing  the  queen  to  trial  was  most 

Whitelock,  and  others  ;   but  supported  agreeable  to  a   parliamentary    way,  and 

by  Pym,  Strode,  Loug,  Glyiiu,  and   by  to  peruse  precedents.      Parl.   Hist.  194. 


156  WALLER'S   PLOT.  CHAP.  X. 

an  insolence  which  a  king,  less  uxorious  than  Charles,  could 
never  pardon,  but  a  violation  of  the  primary  laws  and  moral 
sentiments  that  preserve  human  society,  to  which  the  queen 
was  acting  in  obedience.  Scarce  any  proceeding  of  the  long 
parliament  seems  more  odious  than  this  ;  whether  designed 
by  way  of  intimidation,  or  to  exasperate  the  king,  and  render 
the  composure  of  existing  differences  more  impracticable. 

The  enemies  of  peace  were  strengthened  by  the  discovery 
Waller's  of  what  is  usually  called  Waller's  plot,  a  scheme 
plot.  for  making  a  strong  demonstration  of  the  royalist 

party  in  London,  wherein  several  members  of  both  houses 
appear  to  have  been  more  or  less  concerned.  Upon  the  de 
tection  of  this  conspiracy,  the  two  houses  of  parliament  took 
an  oath  not  to  lay  down  arms,  so  long  as  the  papists  now  in 
arms  should  be  protected  from  the  justice  of  parliament ;  and 
never  to  adhere  to,  or  willingly  assist,  the  forces  raised  by 
the  king,  without  the  consent  of  both  houses.  Every  individ 
ual  member  of  the  peers  and  commons  took  this  oath ;  some 
of  them  being  then  in  secret  concert  with  the  king,  and  others 
entertaining  intentions,  as  their  conduct  very  soon  evinced, 
of  deserting  to  his  side.1  Such  was  the  commencement  of  a 
system  of  perjury,  which  lasted  for  many  years,  and  belies 
the  pretended  religion  of  that  hypocritical  age.  But  we  may 
always  look  for  this  effect  from  oppressive  power,  and  the 
imposition  of  political  tests. 

The  king  was  now  in  a  course  of  success,  which  made  him 
rather  hearken  to  the  sanguine  courtiers  of  Oxford,  where, 
according  to  the  invariable  character  of  an  exiled  faction, 
every  advantage  or  reverse  brought  on  a  disproportionate 
exultation  or  despondency,  than  to  those  better  counsellors 
who  knew  the  precariousness  of  his  good  fortune.  He  pub 
lished  a  declaration,  wherein  he  denied  the  two  houses  at 
Westminster  the  name  of  a  parliament ;  which  he  could  no 
more  take  from  them,  after  the  bill  he  had  passed,  than  they 
could  deprive  him  of  his  royal  title,  and  by  refusing  which 
he  shut  up  all  avenues  to  an  equal  peace.2  This  was  soon 
followed  by  so  extraordinary  a  political  error  as  manifests 
the  king's  want  of  judgment,  and  the  utter  improbability  that 


1  Parl.  Hist.  129. 

2  Id.    133,    June   20  ;    Clarendon,   iv.  containing  full  assurances  of  his  deter  - 
155.     He  published,  however,  a  declara-  mination  to  govern  by  the  known  lawe. 
tion  soon    after  the   taking  of   Bristol,  Parl.  Hist.  144. 


CHA.  I.  — 1642-49.     SECESSION  OF  PEERS  TO  THE  KING.        157 

any  event  of  the   war  could  have  restored  to  England  the 
blessings  of  liberty  and  repose.     Three  peers  of  CT 

J  IP      T     Secession  of 

the  moderate  party,  the  earls  of  Holland,  ISedtord,  some  peers 
and  Clare,  dissatisfied  with  the  preponderance 
a  violent  faction  in  the  commons,  left  their  places 
at  Westminster,  and  came  into  the  king's  quarters.  It  might 
be  presumed,  from  general  policy  as  well  as  from  his  con 
stant  declarations  of  a  desire  to  restore  peace,  that  they  would 
have  been  received  with  such  studied  courtesy  as  might 
serve  to  reconcile  to  their  own  mind  a  step  which,  when 
taken  with  the  best  intentions,  is  always  equivocal  and  hu 
miliating.  There  was  great  reason  to  believe  that  the  earl 
of  Northumberland,  not  only  the  first  peer  then  in  England 
as  to  family  and  fortune,  but  a  man  highly  esteemed  for  pru 
dence,  was  only  waiting  to  observe  the  reception  of  those 
who  went  first  to  Oxford  before  he  followed  their  steps. 
There  were  even  well-founded  hopes  of  the  earl  of  Essex, 
who,  though  incapable  of  betraying  his  trust  as  commander 
of  the  parliament's  army,  was,  both  from  personal  and  public 
motives,  disinclined  to  the  war-party  in  the  commons.  There 
was  much  to  expect  from  all  those  who  had  secretly  wished 
well  to  the  king's  cause,  and  from  those  whom  it  is  madness 
to  reject  or  insult,  the  followers  of  fortune,  the  worshippers 
of  power,  without  whom  neither  fortune  nor  power  can  long 
subsist.  Yet  such  was  the  state  of  Charles's  coun-  Their  treat. 
cil-board  at  Oxford  that  some  were  for  arresting  ment  there 
these  proselyte  earls  ;  and  it  was  carried  with  dif-  la 
ficulty,  after  they  had  been  detained  some  time  at  Walling- 
ford,  that  they  might  come  to  the  court.  But  they  met  there 
with  so  many  and  such  general  slights,  that,  though  they 
fought  in  the  king's  army  at  Newbury,  they  found  their  posi 
tion  intolerably  ignominious,  and,  after  about  three  months, 
returned  to  the  parliament  with  many  expressions  of  repent 
ance,  and  strong  testimonies  to  the  evil  counsels  of  Oxford.1 

i  Clarendon,  iv.  192.  262  ;  Whitelock,  commoner,  who  had  been  in  the  king's 
70.  They  met  with  a  worse  reception  at  quarters,  should  be  admitted  agaiu  to  sit 
Westminster  than  at  Oxford,  as  indeed  in  either  house.  Parl.  Hist.  271.  This 
they  had  reason  to  expect.  A  motion  severity  was  one  cause  of  Essex's  discon- 
that  the  earl  of  Holland  should  be  sent  tent,  which  was  increased  when  the  coin- 
to  the  Tower  was  lost  in  the  commons  by  mons  refused  him  leave  to  take  Holland 
only  one  voice.  Parl.  Hist.  180.  They  with  him  on  his  expedition  into  the  west 
were  provoked  at  his  taking  his  seat  that  summer.  Baillie,  i.  426 ;  U'hite- 
without  permission.  After  long  refusing  lock,  87.  If  it  be  asked  why  this  Roman 
to  consent,  the  lords  agreed  to  an  ordi-  rigor  was  less  impolitic  in  the  parliament 
nance,  June  29,  1644.  that  no  peer  or  than  in  the  kiug,  I  can  only  answer  that 


158    ADVERSENESS  TO  OVERTURES  OF  PEACE.   CHAP.  X. 

The  king  seems  to  have  been  rather  passive  in  this  strange 
piece  of  impolicy,  but  by  no  means  to  have  taken  the  line 
that  became  him,  of  repressing  the  selfish  jealousy  or  petty 
revengefulness  of  his  court.  If  the  earl  of  Holland  was  a 
man  whom  both  he  and  the  queen,  on  the  score  of  his  great 
obligations  to  them,  might  justly  reproach  with  some  ingrati 
tude,  there  was  nothing  to  be  objected  against  the  other  two, 
save  their  continuance  at  Westminster,  and  compliance  in 
votes  that  he  disliked.  And  if  this  were  to  be  visited  by 
neglect  and  discountenance,  there  could,  it  was  plain,  be  no 
reconciliation  between  him  and  the  parliament.  For  who 
could  imagine  that  men  of  courage  and  honor,  while  pos 
sessed  of  any  sort  of  strength  and  any  hopes  of  preserving  it, 
would  put  up  with  a  mere  indemnity  for  their  lives  and  for 
tunes,  subject  to  be  reckoned  as  pardoned  traitors,  who  might 
thank  the  king  for  his  clemency,  without  presuming  to  his 
favor  ?  Charles  must  have  seen  his  superiority  consolidated 
by  repeated  victories,  before  he  could  prudently  assume  this 
tone  of  conquest.  Inferior  in  substantial  force,  notwithstand 
ing  his  transient  advantages,  to  the  parliament,  he  had  no 
probability  of  regaining  his  station  but  by  defections  from 
their  banner ;  and  these,  with  incredible  folly,  he  seemed  to 
decline  ;  far  unlike  his  illustrious  father-in-law,  who  had 
cordially  embraced  the  leaders  of  a  rebellion  much  more  im 
placable  than  the  present.  For  the  Oxford  counsellors  and 
courtiers,  who  set  themselves  against  the  reception  of  the 
three  earls,  besides  their  particular  animosity  towards  the 
earl  of  Holland,1  and  that  general  feeling  of  disdain  and  dis 
trust  which,  as  Clarendon  finely  observes,  seems  by  nature 
attached  to  all  desertion  and  inconstancy,  whether  in  politics 
or  religion  (even  among  those  who  reap  the  advantage  of  it, 
and  when  founded  upon  what  they  ought  to  reckon  the 
soundest  reasons),  there  seem  grounds  to  suspect  that  they 

the  stronger  and  (he  weaker  have  differ-  tained  no  resentment  against  him.     As 

ent  measures  to  pursue.     But  relatively  to  Bedford  and  Clare,  they  would  proba- 

to  the  pacification  of  the  kingdom,  upon  bly  have  been  better  received,  if  not  ac- 

such   terms  as   fellow-citizens  ought   to  companied  by  so  obnoxious  an  intriguer 

require  from  each  other,  it  was  equally  of  the  old  court.     This  seems  to  account 

blamable    in    both    parties,    or    rather  for  the  unanimity  which  the   historian 

more  so  in  that  possessed  of  the  greater  describes   to   have    been    shown   in   the 

power.  council  against  their  favorable  reception, 

i  It  is   intimated  by  Clarendon   that  Light  and  passionate  tempers,  like  that 

some  at  Oxford,  probably  Jermyn  and  of    Henrietta,   are    prone   to    forget    iu- 

Digbv,  were  jealous  of  Holland's  recov-  juries  ;    serious   and    melancholic   ones, 

ering    the  influence    he    had    possessed  like  that  of  Charles,  never  lose  sight  of 

with  the  queen,  who  seems  to  have  re-  them. 


CHA.  I.  —  1G42-49.        ANTI-PACIFIC   PARTY.  159 

had  deeper  and  more  selfish  designs  than  they  cared  to  mani 
fest.  They  had  long  beset  the  king  with  solicitations  for 
titles,  offices,  pensions  ;  but  these  were  necessarily  too  lim 
ited  for  their  cravings.  They  had  sustained,  many  of  them, 
great  losses  ;  they  had  performed  real  or  pretended  services 
for  the  king  ;  and  it  is  probable  that  they  looked  to  a  confis 
cation  of  enemies'  property  for  their  indemnification  or  re 
ward.  This  would  account  for  an  adverseness  to  all  over 
tures  for  peace,  as  decided,  at  this  period,  among  a  great 
body  of  the  cavaliers,  as  it  was  with  the  factions  of  Pym  or 
Vane. 

These  factions  were  now  become  finally  predominant  at 
Westminster.     On  the  news  that   prince   Rupert  Thfi 
had  taken  Bristol,  the  last  and  most  serious  loss  pacific  party 
that  the  parliament  sustained,  the  lords  agreed  on  f^"nj!fnt 
propositions  for  peace  to  be  sent  to  the  king,  of  an  at  \\\-st- 
unusually  moderate    tone.1     The   commons,  on  a  m 
division  of  94  to  65,  determined  to  take  them  into  considera 
tion  ;  but   the  lord-mayor   Pennington  having    procured  an 
address   of  the  city  against  peace,  backed  by  a  tumultuous 
mob,  a  small  majority  was  obtained  against  concurring  with 
the  other  house.2    It  was  after  this  that  the  lords  above  men 
tioned,  as  well  as  many  of  the  commons,  quitted  Westmin 
ster.    The  prevailing  party  had  no  thoughts  of  peace  till  they 
could  dictate  its  conditions.     Through  Essex's  great  success 
in  raising  the   siege  of  Gloucester,  the   most  distinguished 
exploit  in  his  military  life,  and  the  battle  of  Newbury,  where 
in  the  advantage  was  certainly  theirs,  they  became  secure 
against  any  important  attack  on  the  king's  side,  the  war  turn 
ing   again    to    endless   sieges    and    skirmishes   of  partisans. 
And  they  now  adopted  two  important  measures,  one  of  which 
gave  a  new  complexion  to  the  quarrel. 

i  Baillie  deplores  at  this  time  "the  Hist.  156,  &c.;  Clarendon,  iv.  183  ;  Hoi- 
horrible  fears  and  confusions  in  the  city,  lis's  Memoirs.  Hollis  was  a  teller  for  the 
the  king  everywhere  being  victorious,  majority  on  the  first  occasion  ;  he  had  left 
In  the  city  a  strong  and  insolent  party  the  warlike  party  some  months  (Baillie, 
for  him."  P.  391.  "The  malignants  i.  350);  and  his  name  is  in  the  Journals 
stirred  a  multitude  of  women  of  the  repeatedly,  from  November,  1642,  as  teller 
meaner  and  more  infamous  rank  to  come  against  them,  though  he  is  charged  with 
to  the  door  of  both  houses,  and  cry  tu-  having  said  the  year  before  that  he  ab- 
multuously  for  peace  on  any  terms.  This  horred  the  name  of  accommodation, 
tumult  could  not  be  suppressed  but  by  Hutchinson,  p.  296.  Though  a  very 
violence,  and  killing  some  three  or  four  honest,  and  to  a  certain  extent  an  able 
women,  and  hurting  some  of  them,  and  man,  he  was  too  much  carried  away  by 
imprisoning  many."  P.  300.  personal  animosities  ;  and  as  these  shifted 

-  Lords'  and  Commons'  Journals ;  Parl.  his  principles  shifted  also. 


160  A  NEW   GREAT   SEAL.  CHAP.  X. 

Littleton,  the  lord-keeper  of  the  great  seal,  had  carried  it 
away  with  him  to  the  king.  This  of  itself  put  a  stop  to  the 
regular  course  of  the  executive  government,  and  to  the  ad 
ministration  of  justice  within  the  parliament's  quarters.  No 
employments  could  be  filled  up,  no  writs  for  election  of  mem 
bers  issued,  no  commissions  for  holding  the  assizes  completed, 
without  the  indispensable  formality  of  affixing  the  great  seal. 
It  must  surely  excite  a  smile,  that  men  who  had  raised  ar 
mies,  and  fought  battles  against  the  king,  should  be  perplexed 
how  to  get  over  so  technical  a  difficulty.  But  the  great  seal, 
in  the  eyes  of  the  English  lawyers,  has  a  sort  of  mysterious 
efficacy,  and  passes  for  the  depository  of  royal  authority  in  a 
higher  degree  than  the  person  of  the  king.  The 
ineutPmakes  commons  prepared  an  ordinance  in  July  for  mak- 
a  new  great  jng  a  new  great  seal,  in  which  the  lords  could  not 
be  induced  to  concur  till  October.  The  royalists, 
and  the  king  himself,  exclaimed  against  this  as  the  most  au 
dacious  treason,  though  it  may  be  reckoned  a  very  natural 
consequence  of  the  state  in  which  the  parliament  was  placed ; 
and  in  the  subsequent  negotiations  it  was  one  of  the  minor 
points  in  dispute,  whether  he  should  authorize  the  proceed 
ings  under  the  great  seal  of  the  two  houses,  or  they  consent 
to  sanction  what  had  been  done  by  virtue  of  his  own. 

The  second  measure  of  parliament  was  of  greater  moment 
and  more  fatal  consequences.  I  have  already  mentioned  the 
stress  laid  by  the  bigoted  Scots  presbyterians  on  the  es 
tablishment  of  their  own  church-government  in  England. 
Chiefly  perhaps  to  conciliate  this  people,  the  house  of  com 
mons  had  entertained  the  bill  for  abolishing  episcopacy  ;  and 
this  had  formed  a  part  of  the  nineteen  propositions  that  both 
houses  tendered  to  the  king.1  After  the  action  at  Brentford 
they  concurred  in  a  declaration  to  be  delivered  to  the  Scots 
commissioners,  resident  in  London,  wherein,  after  setting 
forth  the  malice  of  the  prelatical  clergy  in  hindering  the 
reformation  of  ecclesiastical  government,  and  professing  their 
own  desire  willingly  and  affectionately  to  pursue  a  closer 
union  in  such  matters  between  the  two  nations,  they  request 
their  brethren  of  Scotland  to  raise  such  forces  as  they  should 
judge  sufficient  for  the  securing  the  peace  of  their  own  bor- 

i  The  resolution,  that  government  by  1642.    Parl.Hist.  ii.  1465.     But  the  ordi- 

archbishops,  bishops,  &c.,  was  inconven-  nance  to  carry  this  fully  into  effect  was 

Sent  and  ought  to  be  taken  away,  passed  not   made  till  October,  1646.     ScobelPs 

both  houses  unanimously,  September  10,  Ordinances. 


CHA.  I.  — 1642-49.   SOLEMN  LEAGUE  AND  COVENANT.    101 

ders  against  ill-affected  persons  there  ;  as  likewise  to  assist 
them  in  suppressing  the  army  of  papists  and  foreigners 
which,  it  was  expected,  would  shortly  be  on  foot  in  Eng 
land.1 

This  overture  produced  for  many  months  no  sensible 
effect.  The  Scots,  with  all  their  national  wariness,  suspected 
that,  in  spite  of  these  general  declarations  in  favor  of  their 
church  polity,  it  was-  not  much  at  heart  with  most  of  the  par 
liament,  and  might  be  given  up  in  a  treaty,  if  the  king  would 
concede  some  other  matters  in  dispute.  Accordingly,  when 
the  progress  of  his  arms,  especially  in  the  north,  during  the 
ensuing  summer,  compelled  the  parliament  to  call  in  a  more 
pressing  manner,  and  by  a  special  embassy,  for  their  aid, 
they  resolved  to  bind  them  down  by  such  a  compact  as  no 
wavering  policy  should  ever  rescind.  They  insisted  therefore 
on  the  adoption  of  the  solq,mn  league  and  covenant,  founded 
on  a  similar  association  of  their  own  five  years  before, 
through  which  they  had  successfully  resisted  the  king  and 
overthrown  the  prelatic  government.  The  covenant  con 
sisted  in  an  oath  to  be  subscribed  by  all  sorts  of  persons  in 
both  kingdoms,  whereby  they  bound  themselves  to  preserve 
the  reformed  religion  in  the  church  of  Scotland,  in  doctrine, 
worship,  discipline,  and  government,  according  to  the  word 
of  God  and  practice  of  the  best  reformed  churches  ;  and  to 
endeavor  to  bring  the  churches  of  God  in  the  three  kingdoms 
to  the  nearest  conjunction  and  uniformity  in  religion,  con 
fession  of  faith,  form  of  church-government,  directory  for 
worship,  and  catechizing;  to  endeavor,  without  respect  of 
persons,  the  extirpation  of  popery,  prelacy  (that  is,  church- 
government  by  archbishops,  bishops,  their  chancellors,  and 
commissaries,  deans  and  chapters,  archdeacons,  and  all  other 
ecclesiastical  officers  depending  on  that  hierarchy),  and 
whatsoever  should  be  found  contrary  to  sound  doctrine  and 
the  power  of  godliness ;  to  preserve  the  rights  and  privileges 
of  the  parliaments  and  the  liberties  of  the  kingdoms,  and  the 
king's  person  and  authority,  in  the  preservation  and  defence 
of  the  true  religion  and  liberties  of  the  kingdoms ;  to  en 
deavor  the  discovery  of  incendiaries  and  rnalignants,  who 
hinder  the  reformation  of  religion,  and  divide  the  king  from 
his  people,  that  they  may  be  brought  to  punishment ;  finally, 
to  assist  and  defend  all  such  as  should  enter  into  this  cove- 

i  Parl.  Hist.  iii.  15, 
VOL.  II.  11 


162 


PARLIAMENT  ACCEPTS  THE  COVENANT.       CHAP.  X. 


nant  and  not  suffer  themselves  to  be  withdrawn  from  it, 
whether  to  revolt  to  the  opposite  party,  or  to  give  in  to  a 
detestable  indifference  or  neutrality.  In  conformity  to  the 
strict  alliance  thus  established  between  the  two  kingdoms, 
the  Scots  commissioners  at  Westminster  were  intrusted, 
jointly  with  a  committee  of  both  houses,  with  very  exten 
sive  powers  to  administer  the  public  affairs.1 

Every  member  of  the  commons  who  remained  at  West- 
The  ar-  minster,  to  the  number  of  228,  or  perhaps  more, 
liamcnt  and  from  20  to  30  peers  that  formed  their  upper 
to  tii"  e  house,2  subscribed  this  deliberate  pledge  to  over- 
covenant,  turn  the  established  church ;  many  of  them  with 
extreme  reluctance,  both  from  a  dislike  of  the  innovation, 
and  from  a  consciousness  that  it  raised  a  most  formidable 
obstacle  to  the  restoration  of  peace  ;  but  with  a  secret  re 
serve,  for  which  some  want  of  precision  in  the  language  of 
this  covenant  (purposely  introduced  by  Vane,  as  is  said,  to 
shelter  his  own  schemes)  afforded  them  a  sort  of  apology.3 
It  was  next  imposed  on  all  civil  and  military  officers,  and 
upon  all  the  beneficed  clergy.4  A  severe  persecution  fell  on 


1  This   committee,  appointed   in   Feb 
ruary,  1644,  consisted  of  the    following 
persons,  the  most   conspicuous,  at  that 
time,    of  the   parliament  :    the   earls  of 
Northumberland,    Essex,  Warwick,   and 
Manchester :   lords    Say,   Wharton,    and 
Roberts  ;    Mr.    I'ierpoint,    the    two    sir 
Henry  Vanes,  sir   Philip    Stapylton.  sir 
William  Waller,  sir  Gilbert  Gerrard,  sir 
William   Armyn,    sir   Arthur    Haslerig  ; 
Messrs.  Crew,  \V~allop,   St.  John.  Crom 
well.  Brown,  and  Glyiin.     Parl.  Hist.  iii. 
248.' 

2  Somers  Tracts,  iv.  533.     The  names 
marked  in  the  Parliamentary  History  as 
having  taken  the  covenant  are  23*3. 

The  earl  of  Lincoln  alone,  a  man  of 
great  integrity  and  moderation,  though 
only  conspicuous  in  the  Journals,  refused 
to  take  the  covenant,  and  was  excluded  in 
consequence  from  his  seat  in  the  house; 
but,  on  his  petition  next  year,  though,  as 
far  as  appears,  without  compliance,  was 
restored,  and  the  vote  rescinded.  Parl. 
Hist.  393.  He  regularly  protested  against 
all  violent  measures  ;  and  we  still  find 
his  name  in  the  minority  on  such  occa 
sions  after  the  Restoration. 

Baillie  says,  the  desertion  of  about  six 
peers  at  this  time  to  the  king  was  of 
great  use  to  the  passing  of  the  covenant 
in  a  legal  way.  Vol.  i.  p.  390. 

a  Burnet's  Mem.  of  Duke  of  Hamilton. 


p.  239.  I  am  not  quite  satisfied  as  to 
this,  which  later  writers  seem  to  have 
taken  from  Burnet.  It  may  well  be  sup 
posed  that  the  ambiguity  of  the  covenant 
was  not  very  palpable;  since  the  Scots 
presbyterians,  a  people  not  easily  coz 
ened,  were  content  with  its  expression. 
According  to  fair  and  honest  rules  of  in 
terpretation,  it  certainly  bound  the  sub 
scribers  to  the  establishment  of  a  church- 
government  conformed  to  that  of  Scot 
land;  namely,  the  presbyterian,  exclu 
sive  of  all  mixture  with  any  other.  But 
Selden,  and  the  other  friends  of  moderate 
episcopacy  who  took  the  covenant,  justi 
fied  it,  I  suppose,  to  their  consciences, 
by  the  pretext  that,  in  renouncing  the 
jurisdiction  of  bishops,  they  meant  the 
unlimited  jurisdiction  without  concur 
rence  of  any  presbyters.  It  was  not, 
however,  an  action  on  which  they  could 
reflect  with  pleasure.  Baxter  says  that 
Gataker,  and  some  others  of  the  assem 
bly,  would  not  subscribe  the  covenant, 
but  on  the  understanding  that  they  did 
not  renounce  primitive  episcopacy  by  it. 
Life  of  Baxter,  p.  48.  These  controver 
sial  subtleties  elude  the  ordinary  reader 
of  history. 

4  After  the  war  was  ended  none  of  the 
king's  party  were  admitted  to  compound 
for  their  estates  without  taking  the  cove 
nant.  This  Clarendon,  in  one  of  his  let- 


CHA.  I."— 1642-49.   CLERGY  REFUSE  TO  SUBSCRIBE.     163 

the  faithful  children  of  the  Anglican  church.  Many  had  al 
ready  been  sequestered  from  their  livings,  or  even  subjected 
to  imprisonment,  by  the  parliamentary  committee  for  scan 
dalous  ministers,  or  by  subordinate  committees  of  the  same 
kind  set  up  in  each  county  within  their  quarters;  sometimes 
on  the  score  of  immoralities  or  false  doctrine,  more  frequent 
ly  for  what  they  termed  malignity,  or  attachment  to  the  king 
and  his  party.1  Yet  wary  men,  who  meddled  not 
with  politics,  might  hope  to  elude  this  inquisition.  of^h^ciergy 
But  the  covenant,  imposed  as  a  general  test,  yho  refuse 
drove  out  all  who  were  too  conscientious  to  pledge 
themselves  by  a  solemn  appeal  to  the  Deity  to  resist  the 
polity  which  they  generally  believed  to  be  of  his  institution. 
What  number  of  the  clergy  were  ejected  (most  of  them  but 
for  refusing  the  covenant,  and  for  no  moral  offence  or  imputed 
superstition)  it  is  impossible  to  ascertain.  Walker,  in  his 
Sufferings  of  the  Clergy,  a  folio  volume  published  in  the 
latter  end  of  Anne's  reign,  with  all  the  virulence  and  par 
tiality  of  the  high-church  faction  in  that  age,  endeavored  to 
support  those  who  had  reckoned  it  at  8000  ;  a  palpable  over 
statement  upon  his  own  showing,  for  he  cannot  produce  near 
2000  names  after  a  most  diligent  investigation.  Neal,  how 
ever,  admits  1600,  probably  more  than  one  fifth  of  the  bene- 
ficed  ministers  in  the  kingdom.'2  The  biographical  collections 
furnish  a  pretty  copious  martyrology  of  men  the  most  dis- 

ters,  calls  "making  haste  to  buy  damna-  on  the  score  of  prejudice,  is  at  least  bet- 

tion  at  two  years' purchase."  Vol.  ii. p.  286.  ter  than  Walker's. 

1  Neal,  ii.  19,  &c.,  is  fair  enough  in  The  king's  party  were  not  less  oppres- 
censuring  the  committees,  especially  sive  towards  ministers  whom  they  reck- 
those  in  the  country.  ''The  greatest  oned  puritan;  which  unluckily  compre- 
part  [of  the  clergy]  were  cast  out  for  ma-  hended  most  of  those  who  were  of  strict 
lignity  [attachment  to  the  royal  cause] ;  lives,  especially  if  they  preached  Calvin- 
superstition  and  false  doctrine  were  hard-  istically,  unless  they  redeemed  that  suspi- 
ly  ever  objected  ;  yet  the  proceedings  of  cion  by  strong  demonstrations  of  loyalty. 
the  sequestrators  were  not  always  justifi-  Neal,  p.  21.  Baxter's  Life,  p.  42.  And,  if 
able;  for,  whereas  a  court  of  judicature  they  put  themselves  forward  on  this  side, 
should  rather  be  counsel  for  the  prisoner  they  were  sure  to  suffer  most  severely  for 
than  the  prosecutor,  the  commissioners  it  on  the  parliament's  success  :  an  ordi- 
considered  the  king's  clergy  as  their  most  nance  of  April  1. 1643,  having  sequestered 
dangerous  enemies,  and  were  ready  to  lay  the  private  estates  of  all  the  clergy  who 
hold  of  all  opportunities  to  discharge  had  aided  the  king.  Thus  the  condition 
them  their  pulpits."  P.  24.  But  if  we  of  the  English  clergy  was  every  way  most 
can  rely  at  all  on  White's  Century  of  Ma-  deplorable ;  and  in  fact  they  were  utterly 
lignant  Ministers  (and  I  do  not  perceive  ruined. 

that  Walker  has  been  able  to  controvert  -  Xeal,  p.  93.  lie  says  it  was  not  ten- 
it),  there  were  a  good  many  cases  of  irreg-  dered,  by  favor,  to  some  of  the  clergy 
ular  life  in  the  clergy,  so  far  at  least  as  who  had  not  been  active  against  the  par- 
haunting  ale-houses  ;  which,  however.was  liament  and  were  reputed  Calvinists.  P. 
much  more  common,  and  consequently  59.  Sanderson  is  said  to  be  one  instance, 
less  indecent,  in  that  age  than  at  present.  This  historian,  an  honest  and  well- 
See  also  Baxter's  Life,  p.  74;  whose  au-  natured  man  at  bottom,  justly  censures 
thority,  though  open  to  some  exceptions  its  imposition. 


164  IMPEACHMENT   OF   LAUD.  CHAP.  X. 

tinguished  by  their  learning  and  virtues  in  that  age.  The 
remorseless  and  indiscriminate  bigotry  of  presbyterianism 
might  boast  that  it  had  heaped  disgrace  on  Walton,  and 
driven  Lydiat  to  beggary;  that  it  trampled  on  the  old  age 
of  Hales,  and  embittered  with  insult  the  dying  moments  of 
Chillingworth. 

But  the  most  unjustifiable  act  of  these  zealots,  and  one  of 
the  greatest  reproaches  of  the  long  parliament, 
was  the  death  of  archbishop  Laud.  In  the  first 
execution  days  of  the  session,  while  the  fall  of  Straffbrd 
struck  every  one  with  astonishment,  the  commons 
had  carried  up  an  impeachment  against  him  for  high  treason, 
in  fourteen  articles  of  charge ;  and  he  had  lain  ever  since  in 
tliu  Tower,  his  revenues  and  even  private  estate  sequestered, 
and  in  great  indigence.  After  nearly  three  years'  neglect, 
specific  articles  were  exhibited  against  him  in  October,  1643, 
but  not  proceeded  on  with  vigor  till  December,  1644;  when, 
for  whatever  reason,  a  determination  was  taken  to  pursue 
this  unfortunate  prelate  to  death.  The  charges  against  him, 
which  Wild,  Maynard,  and  other  managers  of  the  impeach 
ment  were  to  aggravate  into  treason,  related  partly  to  those 
papistical  innovations  which  had  nothing  of  a  political 
character  about  them,  partly  to  the  violent  proceedings  in 
the  star-chamber  and  high-commission  courts,  wherein  Laud 
was  very  prominent  as  a  councillor,  but  certainly  without 
any  greater  legal  responsibility  than  fell  on  many  others. 
He  defended  himself,  not  always  prudently  or  satisfac 
torily,  but  with  courage  and  ability  ;  never  receding  from 
his  magnificent  notions  of  spiritual  power,  but  endeavor 
ing  to  shift  the  blame  of  the  sentences  pronounced  by  the 
council  on  those  who  concurred  with  him.  The  imputa 
tion  of  popery  he  repelled  by  a  list  of  the  converts  he 
had  made  ;  but  the  word  was  equivocal,  and  he  could  not 
deny  the  difference  between  his  protestantism  and  that 
of  our  Reformation.  Nothing  could  be  more  monstrous 
than  the  allegation  of  treason  in  this  case.  The  judges,  on  a 
reference  by  the  lords,  gave  it  to  be  understood,  in  their 
timid  way,  that  the  charges  contained  no  legal  treason.1 
But,  the  commons  having  changed  their  impeachment  into 

l  "  All  the  judges  answered  that  they  pressed    to  be  treason  in  the  statute  of 

could  deliver  no  opinion  in  this  case,  in  25  E.  III.,  and  so  referred  it  wholly  to 

point  of  treason  by  the  law :  because  they  the  judgment  of  this    house."      Lords' 

could  not  deliver  any  opinion  in  point  of  Journals,  17th  December,  1644. 
treason  but  what   was    particularly   ex- 


CHA.  I.  —  1642-49.    DECLINE   OF   THE  KING'S   AFFAIRS.        165 

an  ordinance  for  his  execution,  the  peers  were  pusillanimous 
enough  to  comply.  It  is  said  by  Clarendon  that  only  seven 
lords  were  in  the  house  on  this  occasion  :  but  the  Journals 
unfortunately  bear  witness  to  the  presence  of  twenty.1  Laud 
had  amply  merited  punishment  for  his  tyrannical  abuse  of 
power;  but  his  execution  at  the  age  of  seventy,  without  the 
slightest  pretence  of  political  necessity,  was  a  far  more  un 
justifiable  instance  of  it  than  any  that  was  alleged  against 
him. 

Pursuant  to  the  before-mentioned  treaty,  the  Scots  army 
of  21,000  men  marched  into  England  in  January, 

i  /,  4  t  n>i  •  •  .      Dec-line  of 

1 044.  llns  was  a  very  serious  accession  to  the  king's 
Charles's  difficulties,  already  sufficient  to  dissipate  J^jrs  in 
all  hopes  of  final  triumph,  except  in  the  most  san 
guine  minds.  His  successes,  in  fact,  had  been  rather  such  as 
to  surprise  well-judging  men  than  to  make  them  expect  any 
more  favorable  termination  of  the  war  than  by  a  fair  treaty. 
From  the  beginning  it  may  be  said  that  the  yeomanry  and 
trading  classes  of  towns  were  generally  hostile  to  the  king's 
side,  even  in  those  counties  which  were  in  his  military 
occupation  ;  except  in  a  few,  such  as  Cornwall,  Worcester, 
Salop,  and  most  of  Wales,  where  the  prevailing  sentiment 
was  chiefly  royalist ; 2  and  this  disaffection  was  prodigiously 
increased  through  the  license  of  his  ill-paid  and  ill-dis 
ciplined  arm}'.  On  the  other  hand,  the  gentry  were  in  a 
great  majority  attached  to  his  cause,  even  in  the  parts  of 
England  which  lay  subject  to  the  parliament.  But  he  \vas 

i  Lords' Journals,  4th  January.     It  is  But  the  Worcestershire  populace,  he  says, 

not  said  to  be  done  neui.  con.  were  violent  royalists  :  p.  39.     Clarendon 

-  ;'  The  difference  in  the  temper  of  the  observes  in  another  place,  iii.  41,  "  There 
common  people  of  both  sides  was  so  great  was  in  this  county  (Cornwall),  as  through- 
that  they  who  inclined  to  the  parliament  out  the  kingdom,  a  wonderful  and  super- 
left  nothing  unperformed  that  might  stitious  reverence  towards  the  name  of  a 
advance  the  cause  ;  whereas  they  who  parliament,  and  a  prejudice  to  the  power 
wished  well  to  the  king  thought  they  had  of  the  court."  He  afterwards,  p.  436, 
performed  their  duty  in  doing  so.  and  calls  "  an  implicit  reverence  to  the  name 
that  they  had  done  enough  for  him  in  of  a  parliament  the  fatal  disease  of  the 
that  they  had  done  nothing  against  him.''  whole  kingdom."  So  prevalent  was  the 
Clarendon,  p.  3,  452.  '•  Most  of  the  gen-  sense  of  the  king's  arbitrary  government, 
try  of  the  county  (Nottinghamshire),"  especially  in  the  case  of  ship-money, 
says  Mrs.  Ilutchinson,  i:  were  disaffected  \Varburton  remarks  that  he  never  ex- 
to  the  parliament;  most  of  the  middle  pressed  any  repentance,  or  made  am  con 
sort,  the  able  substantial  freeholders  and  fession  in  his  public  declarations,  that  his 
the  other  commons,  who  had  not  their  former  administration  had  been  illegal, 
dependence  upon  the  malignant  nobility  Notes  on  Clarendon,  p.  560.  But  this 
and  gentry,  adhered  to  the  parliament."  was  not,  perhaps,  to  be  expected  :  and 
P.  81.  This  I  conceive  to  have  been  the  his  repeated  promises  to  govern  according 
case  in  much  the  greater  part  of  England,  to  law  might  be  construed  into  tat  it  ac- 
Baxtcr.  in  his  Life,  p.  30,  says  just  the  knowledgments  of  past  errors. 
fiauie  thing  in  a  passage  worthy  of  notice. 


166  FACTIONS  AT  OXFORD.         CHAP.  X. 

never  able  to  make  any  durable  impression  on  what  were 
called  the  associated  counties,  extending  from  Norfolk  to 
Sussex  inclusively,  within  which  no  rising  could  be  attempted 
with  any  effect ; l  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  parliament 
possessed  several  garrisons,  and  kept  up  considerable  forces, 
in  that  larger  portion  of  the  kingdom  where  he  might  be 
reckoned  superior.  Their  resources  were  far  greater;  and 
the  taxes  imposed  by  them,  though  exceedingly  heavy,  were 
more  regularly  paid  and  less  ruinous  to  the  people  than  the 
sudden  exactions,  half  plunder  half  contribution,  of  the  rav 
enous  cavaliers.  The  king  lost  ground  during  the  winter. 
He  had  built  hopes  on  bringing  over  troops  from  Ireland  ; 
for  the  sake  of  which  he  made  a  truce,  then  called  the  cessa 
tion,  with  the  rebel  catholics.  But  this  reinforcement  having 
been  beaten  and  dispersed  by  Fairfax  at  Namptwich,  he  had 
the  mortification  of  finding  that  this  scheme  had  much  in 
creased  his  own  unpopularity,  and  the  distrust  entertained  of 
him  even  by  his  adherents,  without  the  smallest  advantage. 
The  next  campaign  was  marked  by  the  great  defeat  of 
Rupert  and  Newcastle  at  Marston  Moor,  and  the  loss  of  the 
north  of  England  ;  a  blow  so  terrible  as  must  have  brought 
on  his  speedy  ruin,  if  it  had  not  been  in  some  degree  miti 
gated  by  his  strange  and  unexpected  success  over  Essex  in 
the  west,  and  by  the  tardiness  of  the  Scots  in  making  use  of 
their  victory.  Upon  the  result  of  the  campaign  of  1644,  the 
king's  affairs  were  in  such  bad  condition  that  nothing  less 
than  a  series  of  victories  could  have  reinstated  them  ;  yet 
not  so  totally  ruined  as  to  hold  out  much  prospect  of  an 
approaching  termination  to  the  people's  calamities. 

There  had  been,  from  the  very  commencement  of  the  war, 
factions  all  that  distraction  in  the  king's  councils  at  Oxford, 
at  Oxford.  anc[  an  those  bickerings  and  heart-burnings  among 
his  adherents,  which  naturally  belong  to  men  embarked  in  a 
dangerous  cause  with  different  motives  and  different  views. 
The  military  men,  some  of  whom  had  served  with  the  Swedes 
in  Germany,  acknowledged  no  laws  but  those  of  war  ;  and 
could  not  understand  that,  either  in  annoying  the  enemy  or 
providing  for  themselves,  they  were  to  acknowledge  any  re- 

l    The   associated    counties,     properly  but  it  \vas  equally  within  the  parliarnen- 
speaking,  were  at  first  Norfolk,  Suffolk,  tary    pale,    though   the  gentry  were   re- 
Essex,  Hertford,  Cambridge  ;     to    which  markably  loyal  in  their  inclinations.    Tho 
some  others  were  added.     Sussex,  I  be-  same  was  true  of  Kent, 
lieve,  was  not  a  part  of  the  association  : 


CIIA.  I.  — 1G42-49.      PARLIAMENT   AT   OXFORD.  167 

straints  of  the  civil  power.  The  lawyers,  on  the  other  hand, 
and  the  whole  constitutional  party,  labored  to  keep  up,  in  the 
midst  of  arms,  the  appearances  at  least  of  legal  justice  and 
that  favorite  maxim  of  Englishmen,  the  supremacy  of  civil 
over  military  authority,  rather  more  strictly  perhaps  than  the 
nature  of  their  actual  circumstances  would  admit.  At  the 
head  of  the  former  party  stood  the  king's  two  nephews,  Ru 
pert  and  Maurice,  the  younger  sons  of  the  late  unfortunate 
elector  palatine,  soldiers  of  fortune  (as  we  may  truly  call 
them),  of  rude  and  imperious  characters,  avowedly  despising 
the  council  and  the  common  law,  and  supported  by  Charles, 
with  all  his  injudiciousness  and  incapacity  for  affairs,  against 
the  greatest  men  of  the  kingdom.  Another  very  powerful 
and  obnoxious  faction  was  that  of  the  catholics,  proud  of 
their  services  and  sacrifices,  confident  in  the  queen's  protec 
tion,  and  looking  at  lea-t  to  a  full  toleration  as  their  just 
reward.  They  were  the  natural  enemies  of  peace,  and  little 
less  hated  at  Oxford  than  at  Westminster.1 

At  the  beginning  of  the  winter  of  1643  the  king  took  the 
remarkable  step  of  summoning  the  peers  and  com-  Royalist 
moners  of  his  party  to  meet  in  parliament  at  Oxford,  lords  and 

rr,,  .  •  i       ii  i    i        ii  ,•  commoners 

ihis  was  evidently  suggested  by  the  constitution-  summoned 
alists  with  the  intention  of  obtaining    a  supply  by  to  that  city. 
more  regular  methods  than  forced  contribution,  and  of  oppos 
ing  a  barrier  to  the  military  and  popish  interests.2  Whether  it 

l  Clarendon,  passim.  May,  160.    Baillie,  Sari  la  compagnia  malvagia  e  ria, 

i.  416.     See,  in  the  Somers  Tracts,  v.  495,  Nella  quel  tu  cadrai  in  questa  valle. 
a  dialogue    between  a  gentleman  and   a 

citizen,  printed  at  Oxford,  1643.  Though  We  know  too  little  of  this  excellent  man, 
of  course  a  royalist  pamphlet,  it  shows  whose  talents  however  and  early  pursuits 
the  disunion  that  prevailed  in  that  un-  do  not  seem  to  have  particularly  qualified 
fortunate  party,  and  inveighs  against  the  him  for  public  life.  It  is  evident  that  he 
influence  of  the  papists,  in  consequence  did  not  plunge  into  the  loyal  cause  with 
of  which  the  marquis  of  Hertford  is  said  all  the  zeal  of  his  friend  Hyde ;  and  the 
to  have  declined  the  king's  service.  Hu-  king  doubtless  had  no  great  regard  for 
pert  is  praised,  and  Newcastle  struck  at.  the  counsels  of  one  who  took  so  very 
It  is  written,  on  the  whole,  in  rather  a  different  a  view  of  some  important  mat- 
lukewarm  style  of  loyalty.  The  earl  of  ters  from  himself.  Life  of  Clarendon,  48. 
Holland  and  sir  Edward  Bering  gave  out  He  had  been  active  against  Strafford,  and 
as  their  reason  for  quitting  the  king's  side  probably  had  a  bad  opinion  of  Laud.  The 
that  there  was  great  danger  of  popery,  prosecution  of  Finch  for  high  treason  he 
This  was  much  exaggerated;  yet  lord  had  himself  moved.  In  the  Ormond  Let- 
Sunderland  talks  the  same  language.  Sid-  ters,  i.  20,  he  seems  to  be  struck  at  by 
ney  Papers,  ii.  667.  Lord  Falkland's  de-  one  writing  from  Oxford.  June  1,  1643: 
jectiou  of  spirits,  and  constant  desire  of  ''God  forbid  that  the  best  of  men  an  I 
peace,  must  chiefly  be  ascribed  to  his  dis-  kings  be  so  xised  by  some  bad  hollo  .v- 
pust  with  the  councils  of  Oxford,  and  the  hearted  counsellors,  \vho  affect  too  miifh 
greater  part  of  those  with  whom  he  was  the  parliamentary  way.  Many  spare  not 
associated.  to  name  them  :  and  I  doubt  not  but  you 

have  heard  their  names." 

E  quel  die  pi  i  ti  graveri  le  spalle  -  It  appears  by  the  late  edition  of  Clar- 


168  PARLIAMENT  AT  OXFORD.        CHAP.  X. 

were  equally  calculated  to  further  the  king's  cause  may 
admit  of  some  doubt.  The  royalist  convention  indeed,  which 
name  it  ought  rather  to  have  taken  than  that  of  parliament, 
met  in  considerable  strength  at  Oxford.  Forty-three  peers, 
and  one  hundred  and  eighteen  commoners,  subscribed  a  letter 
to  the  earl  of  Essex,  expressing  their  anxiety  for  a  treaty 
of  peace  ;  twenty -nine  of  the  former,  and  fifty-seven  of  the 
latter,  it  is  said,  being  then  absent  on  the  king's  service,  or 
other  occasions.1  Such  a  display  of  numbers,  nearly  double 
in  one  house  and  nearly  half  in  the  other,  of  those  who  re 
mained  at  Westminster,  might  have  an  effect  on  the  nation's 
prejudices,  and  at  least  redeem  the  king  from  the  charge  of 
standing  singly  against  his  parliament.  But  they  came  in 
no  spirit  of  fervid  loyalty,  rather  distrustful  of  the  king, 
especially  on  the  score  of  religion ;  averse  to  some  whom 
he  had  injudiciously  raised  to  power,  such  as  Digby  and  Cot- 
tington  ;  and  so  eager  for  pacification  as  not  perhaps  to  have 
been  unwilling  to  purchase  it  by  greater  concessions  than  he 
could  prudently  make.2  Peace  however  was  by  no  means 
brought  nearer  by  their  meeting;  the  parliament,  jealous  and 
alarmed  at  it,  would  never  recognize  their  existence,  and 
were  so  provoked  at  their  voting  the  lords  and  commons 
at  Westminster  guilty  of  treason,  that,  if  we  believe  a 
writer  of  some  authority,  the  two  houses  unanimously  passed 
a  vote  on  Essex's  motion,  summoning  the  king  to  appear 

endon,  iv.  351,  that  he  was  the  adviser  ting,  if   attentively   considered,  a   little 

of  calling  the  Oxford  parliament.      The  apprehension   of   popery   and    arbitrary 

former  editors  omitted  his  name.  power.     Baillie  says,  in   one  of  his  let- 

1  Parl.    Hist.  218.      The  number  who  ters  :  "  The  first  day  the  Oxford   parlia- 
took  the  covenant   in   September,  1643,  nient  met,  the  king  made  a  long  speech ; 
appears  by  a  list  of  the  long  parliament  but  many  being  ready  to  give  in  papers 
in  the  same  work,  vol.  ii.,  to  be  236  ;  but  for  the  removing  of  Digby,   Cottington, 
twelve  of  these  are  included  in  both  lists,  and    others    from    court,    the    meeting 
having    gone  afterwards  into  the  king's  was  adjourned  for  some  days."     i.  429. 
quarters.      The    remainder,   about    100,  Indeed,    the  restoration    of   Cottington, 
were  either  dead  since  the  beginning  of  and  still    more  of   Windebank,    to    the 
the  troubles,  or  for  some  reason  absented  king's  councils,  was  no  pledge  of  protes- 
themselves  from  both  assemblies.      Pos-  tant   or   constitutional   measures.     This 
sibly  the  list  of  those  who  tdok  the  cove-  opposition,  so  natural  to  parliaments  in. 
nant  is   not   quite    complete ;    nor  do  I  any   circumstances,    disgusted    Charles, 
think   the   king   had   much    more   than  In  one  of  his  letters  to  the  queen  he  con- 
about  sixty  peers  on  his  side.     The  par-  gratulates  himself  on  being  "  freed  from 
liament  however  could  not  have  produced  the  place  of  all  mutinous  motions,  his 
thirty.     Lords'  Journals,  Jan.  22,  1644.  mongrel   parliament  "     It   may  be  pre- 
Whitelock,  p.  80.  says  that  two  hundred  sumed  that  some  of  those  who  obeyed 
and  eighty  appeared  in  the  house  of  com-  the  king's  summons  to  Oxford  were  in- 
mons,    Jan.    1644,  besides  one   hundred  fluenced  less  by  loyalty  than  a  consider- 
abseut  in  the  parliament's  service;    but  ation  that  their  estates  lay  in  parts  oc- 
this  cannot  be  quite  exact.  cupied  by  his  troops ;  of  course  the  same 

2  Hushworth,    Abr.    v.    266   and   296  ;  is  applicable  to  the  Westminster  parlia- 
where  is  an  address  to  the  king,  intiuia-  meiit. 


CHA.  I.  — 1642-49.      TREATY  OF   UXBRIDGE.  1 69 

by  a  certain  day.1  But  the  Scots  commissioners  had  force 
enough  to  turn  aside  such  violent  suggestions,  and  ultimately 
obtained  the  concurrence  of  both  houses  in  propositions  for 
a  treaty.'2  r "'hey  had  begun  to  find  themselves  less  likely  to 
sway  the  counsels  of  Westminster  than  they  had  expected, 
and  dreaded  the  rising  ascendency  of  Cromwell.  The  treaty 
was  opened  at  Uxbridge  in  January,  1G45.  But  Treaty  of 
neither  the  king  nor  his  adversaries  entered  on  it  Uxbridge. 
with  minds  sincerely  bent  on  peace  :  they,  on  the  one  hand, 
resolute  not  to  swerve  from  the  utmost  rigor  of  a  conqueror's 
terms,  without  having  conquered ;  and  he,  though  more 
secretly,  cherishing  illusive  hopes  of  a  more  triumphant 
restoration  to  power  than  any  treaty  could  be  expected  to 
effect.3 

The  three  leading  topics  of  discussion  among  the  negotia 
tors  at  Uxbridge  were  the  church,  the  militia,  and  Impossi_ 
the   state   of   Ireland.     Bound  by  their   unhappy  bility°f 
covenant,  and  watched  by  their  Scots  colleagues,  ' c 
the  English  commissioners  on  the  parliament  side  demanded 
the  complete  establishment  of  a  presbyterian  polity,  and  the 
substitution  of  what  was  called  the  directory  for  the  Angli 
can    liturgy.     Upon  this  head  there   was  little  prospect    of 
a    union.       The   king  had    deeply    imbibed    the    tenets    of 

1  Baillie,  441.     I  can  find  no  mention  Essex,    with   six  more,  would  meet  the 
of  this  in  the  Journals  ;   but,  as  Baillie  general    (earl    of    Brentford),    with    six 
was  then  in  London,  and  in  constant  in-  more,  to  consider  of  all  means  possible 
tercourse  with  the  leaders  of  parliament,  to  reconcile  the  unhappy  differences  and 
there  must  have  been  some  foundation  misunderstandings  that  have  so  long  af- 
for   his  statement,  though  he  seems  to  liicted  the  kingdom.     Sir  Edward  Walk- 
have  been  inaccurate  as  to  the  fact  of  er's  Historical  Discourses,  59.     The  king 
the  vote.  was  acquainted  with  this  letter  before  it 

2  Parl.  Hist.  299.  et  post.     Clarendon,  was  sent,  but  after  some  hands  had  been 
v.  16.     White-lock,  110,  &c.     Rush.  Abr.  subscribed  to  it.     He  consented,  but  evi- 
v.  449,  &c.  dently  with  great  reluctance,  and  even 

3  It  was   impossible   for   the    king   to  indignation;  as  his  own  expressions  testi- 
avoid  this  treaty.     Not  only  his  Oxford  fy  in  this  passage  of  Walker,  whose  man- 
parliament,  as   might   naturally  be   ex-  uscript  here,  as   in   many  other  places, 
pected,   were    openly  desirous  of   peace,  contains  interlineations  by  Charles  hini- 
but  a  great   part  of  the  army  had.  in  self.     It  was  doubtless  rather  in  a  nmti- 
August,  1644,  while  opposed  to  that  of  nous    spirit,  which    had   spread    widely 
Essex   in   the  west,  taken   the   extraor-  through  the  army,  and  contributed  to 
dinary  step  of  sending  a  letter  to  that  its  utter  ruin  in  the  next  campaign.     I 
general,  declaring  their  intentions  for  the  presume  it  \vas  at  the  king's  desire  that 
rights  and  liberties  of  the  people,  privi-  the  letter  was  signed  by  the  general  as 
leges  of  parliament,  and   protestant  re-  well  as   by  prince  Maurice,  and  all   the 
ligion  against  popish  innovations  ;   and  colonels,  I   believe,  in  his  army,  to  take 
that,  on  the  faith  of  subjects,  the  honor  off  the  appearance  of  a  faction  ;   hut  it 
and   reputation   of   gentlemen    and   sol-  certainly  originated  with  Wilmot,  Percy, 
diers,  they  would  with  their  lives  main-  and  some  of  those  whom  he  thought  ill 
tain  that  which  his  majesty  should  pub-  affected.     See  Clarendon,  iv.  527,  et  post, 
licly   promise    in   order    to    a  bloodless  Rushw.  Abr.  v.  318,  358. 

peace ;    they   went  on   to   request    that 


170  IMPOSSIBILITY   OF  AGREEMENT.  CHAP.  X. 

Andrews  and  Laud,  believing  an  episcopal  government  indis 
pensably  necessary  to  the  valid  administration  of  the  sacra 
ments,  and  the  very  existence  of  a  Christian  church.  The 
Scots,  and  a  portion  of  the  English  clergy,  were  equally 
confident  that  their  presbyterian  form  was  established  by  the 
apostles  as  a  divine  model,  from  which  it  was  unlawful  to 
depart.1  Though  most  of  the  laity  in  this  kingdom  enter 
tained  less  narrow  opinions,  the  parliamentary  commissioners 
thought  the  king  ought  rather  to  concede  such  a  point  than 
themselves,  especially  as  his  former  consent  to  the  abolition 
of  episcopacy  in  Scotland  weakened  a  good  deal  the  force  of 
his  plea  of  conscience  ;  while  the  royalists,  even  could  they 
have  persuaded  their  master,  thought  episcopacy,  though  not 
absolutely  of  divine  right  (a  notion  which  they  left  to  the 
churchmen),  yet  so  highly  beneficial  to  religion  and  so  im 
portant  to  the  monarchy,  that  nothing  less  than  extreme 
necessity,  or  at  least  the  prospect  of  a  signal  advantage, 
could  justify  its  abandonment.  They  offered,  however, 
what  in  an  earlier  stage  of  their  dissensions  would  have 
satisfied  almost  every  man,  that  limited  scheme  of  episcopal 
hierarchy,  above  mentioned  as  approved  by  Usher,  rendering 
the  bishop  among  his  presbyters  much  like  the  king  in  par 
liament,  not  free  to  exercise  his  jurisdiction,  nor  to  confer 
orders  without  their  consent,  and  offered  to  leave  all  cere 
monies  to  the  minister's  discretion.  Such  a  compromise 
would  probably  have  pleased  the  English  nation,  averse  to 
nothing  in  their  established  church  except  its  abuses  ;  but 
the  parliamentary  negotiators  would  not  so  much  as  enter 
into  discussion  upon  it.2 

They  were  hardly  less  unyielding  on  the  subject  of  the 
militia.  They  began  with  a  demand  of  naming  all  the  com 
manders  by  sea  and  land,  including  the  lord-lieutenant  of  Ire- 

i  The    king's    doctors,    Steward    and  lish   parliament;   and,  if  this  offer  was 

Sheldon,  argued  at  Uxbridge  that  epis-  sincerely  made,  it  must  have  been  from 

copacy  was  jure  divino ;  Henderson  and  a  conviction  that  he  could  not  become 

others,  that  presbytery  was  so.     White-  such. 

lock,    132.      These    churchmen    should  ^    Rush  worth,    Whitelock,    Clarendon, 

have  been  locked  up  like  a  jury,  without  The  latter  tells  in  his  Life,  which  reveals 

food  or  fire,  till  they  agreed.  several  things  not  found  in  his  History, 

If  we  may  believe  Clarendon,  the  earl  that  the  king  was  very  angry  with  some 
of  Loudou  offered  in  the  name  of  the  of  his  Uxbridge  commissioners,  especially 
Scots  that,  if  the  king  would  give  up  Mr.  Bridgmaii,  for  making  too  great  con- 
episcopacy,  they  would  not  press  any  of  cessions  with  respect  to  episcopacy.  He 
the  otner  demands.  It  is  certain  how-  lived,  however,  to  make  himself  much 
ever  that  they  would  never  have  suffered  greater. 
him  to  become  the  master  of  the  Eug- 


CHA.  I.  — 1042-49.      DEMANDS   OF   THE  PARLIAMENT.  171 

Land,  and  all  governors  of  garrisons,  for  an  unlimited  time. 
The  king,  though  not  very  willingly,  proposed  that  the  com 
mand  should  be  vested  in  twenty  persons,  half  to  be  named 
by  himself,  half  by  the  parliament,  for  the  term  of  three 
years,  which  he  afterwards  extended  to  seven,  at  the  expira 
tion  of  which  time  it  should  revert  to  the  crown.  But  the  ut 
most  concession  that  could  be  obtained  from  the  other  side 
was  to  limit  their  exclusive  possession  of  this  power  to  seven 
years,  leaving  the  matter  open  for  an  ulterior  arrangement 
by  act  of  parliament  at  their  termination.1  Even  ^^ 
if  this  treaty  had  been  conducted  between  two  ment  insist 
belligerent  states,  whom  rivalry  or  ambition  often 
excite  to  press  every  demand  which  superior  power 
can  extort  from  weakness,  there  yet  was  nothing  in  the  con 
dition  of  the  king's  affairs  which  should  compel  him  thus  to 
pass  under  the  yoke,  and  enter  his  capital  as  a  prisoner. 
But  we  may  also  remark  that,  according  to  the  great  princi 
ple  that  the  English  constitution,  in  all  its  component  parts, 
was  to  be  maintained  by  both  sides  in  this  contest,  the  ques 
tion  for  parliament  was  not  what  their  military  advantages  or 
resources  for  war  entitled  them  to  ask,  but  what  was  required 
for  the  due  balance  of  power  under  a  limited  monarchy. 
They  could  rightly  demand  no  further  concession  from  the 
king  than  was  indispensable  for  their  own  and  the  people's 
security  ;  and  I  leave  any  one  who  is  tolerably  acquainted 
with  the  state  of  England  at  the  beginning  of  1645  to  decide 
whether  their  privileges  and  the  public  liberties  incurred  a 
greater  risk  by  such  an  equal  partition  of  power  over  the 
sword  as  the  king  proposed,  than  his  prerogative  and  per 
sonal  freedom  would  have  encountered  by  abandoning  it  al 
together  to  their  discretion.  I  am  far  from  thinking  that  the 
acceptance  of  the  king's  propositions  at  Uxbridge  would  have 
restored  tranquillity  to  England.  He  would  still  have  re 
pined  at  the  limitations  of  monarchy,  and  others  would  have 
conspired  against  its  existence.  But  of  the  various  conse 
quences  which  we  may  picture  to  ourselves  as  capable  of  re 
sulting  from  a  pacification,  that  which  appears  to  me  the  least 
likely  is,  that  Charles  should  have  reestablished  that  arbitrary 
power  which  he  had  exercised  in  the  earlier  period  of  his 
reign.  Whence,  in  fact,  was  he  to  look  for  assistance  ?  Was 
it  with  such  creatures  of  a  court  as  Jermyn  or  Ashburnham, 

i  Whitelock,  133. 


172  PROBABLE  RESULTS  OF  A  PACIFICATION.     CHAP.  X. 

or  with  a  worn-out  veteran  of  office  like  Cottington,  or  a  rash 
adventurer  like  Digbj,  that  he  could  outwit  Vane,  or  over 
awe  Cromwell,  or  silence  the  press  and  the  pulpit,  or  strike 
with  panic  the  stern  puritan  and  the  confident  fanatic? 
Some  there  were,  beyond  question,  both  soldiers  and  court 
iers,  who  hated  the  very  name  of  a  limited  monarchy,  and 
murmured  at  the  constitutional  language  which  the  king, 
from  the  time  he  made  use  of  the  pens  of  Hyde  and  Falk 
land,  had  systematically  employed  in  his  public  declarations.1 
But  it  is  as  certain  that  the  great  majority  of  his  Oxford 
parliament,  and  of  those  upon  whom  he  must  have  depended 
either  in  the  field  or  in  council,  were  apprehensive  of  any 
victory  that  might  render  him  absolute,  as  that  Essex  and 
Manchester  were  unwilling  to  conquer  at  the  expense  of  the 
constitution.2  The  catholics,  indeed,  generally  speaking, 
would  have  gone  great  lengths  in  asserting  his  authority. 
Nor  is  this  any  reproach  to  that  body,  by  no  means  naturally 
less  attached  to  their  country  and  its  liberties  than  other  Eng 
lishmen,  but  driven  by  an  unjust  persecution  to  see  their  only 
hope  of  emancipation  in  the  nation's  servitude.  They  could 
not  be  expected  to  sympathize  in  that  patriotism  of  the  seven 
teenth  century,  which,  if  it  poured  warmth  and  radiance  on 
the  protestant,  was  to  them  as  a  devouring  fire.  But  the 
king  could  have  made  no  use  of  the  catholics  as  a  distinct 
body  for  any  political  purpose  without  uniting  all  other  par 
ties  against  him.  He  had  already  given  so  much  offence, 
at  the  commencement  of  the  war,  by  accepting  the  services 

1  The  creed  of  this  party  is  set  forth  to  consult.     Father  Orleans,  in  a  passage 
in  the  Behemoth  of  Hobbes ;    which  is,  with  which,  the  bishop  probably  was  ac- 
in  other  words,  the   application  of  those  quainted,  confirms  this  ;  and  his  author- 
principles  of  government  which  are  laid  ity  is  very  good    as  to  the  secret  of  the 
down  in  the  Leviathan  to  the  constitu-  court.      Itupert,   he    says,    proposed    to 
tion  and  state    of  England  in    the  civil  march  to  London.  "  Mais  1'esprit  Anglois, 
war.  It  is  republished  in  baron  Maseres's  qui  ne  se  dement  point   meme  dans  les 
Tracts,  ii.  565,  567.     Sir  Philip  Warwick,  plus  attaches  a  la  royaute,  1'esprit  An- 
in  his  Memoirs,  198,  hints  something  of  glois,  dis-je,  toujours  entete  de  ces  libertez 
the  same  kind.  si  funestes  au  repos  de  la  nation,  porta  la 

2  Warburton,  in    the  notes  subjoined  plus  graude  partie  du  conseil  a  s'opposer 
to  the  late  edition  of  Clarendon,  vii.  563,  &  ce  dessein.     Le  pretexte  fut  qu'il  etoit 
mentions  a  conversation  he  had  with  the  dangereux  pour  le  roy  de  1'entreprendre. 
duke  of  Argyle  and  lord  Cobham  (both  et    pour   la  ville    que   le   prince    Robert 
soldiers,  and  the  first  a  distinguished  one)  I'executast,  jeune   comme   il   etoit,   em- 
as  to  the   conduct   of  the  king  and  the  porte,  et  capable  d'y  mettre  le  feu.     La 
earl  of  Essex  after  the  battle  of  Edgehill.  vraie  raison  etoit  qu'ils  craignoient  quc, 
They  agreed  it  was  inexplicable  on  both  si  le  roy  entroit  dans  Londres  les  armes  a 
sides  by  any  military  principle.    Warbur-  la  main,  il  ne  pretendist  sur  la  nation  une 
ton  explained  it  by  the  unwillingness  to  espece  de  droit  de  conquete,  qui  le  ren- 
be   too   victorious,  felt  by  Essex  himself,  dist  trop  absolu."  Revolut.  d'Angleterre, 
and  by  those  whom  the  king  was  forced  iii.  104. 


CHA.  I.— 1642-49.       THE   KING'S   PROSPECTS.  173 

which  the  catholic  gentry  were  forward  to  offer,  that,  instead 
of  a  more  panly  justification,  which  the  temper  of  the  times, 
he  thought,  did  not  permit,  he  had  recourse  to  the  useless 
subterfuges  of  denying  or  extenuating  the  facts,  and  even  to 
a  strangely  improbable  recrimination,  asserting  on  several 
occasions  that  the  number  of  papists  in  the  parliament's  army 
was  much  greater  than  in  his  own.1 

It  may  still  indeed  be  questioned  whether,  admitting  the 
propositions  tendered  to  the  king  to  have  been  unreasonable 
and  insecure,  it  might  not  yet  have  been  expedient,  in  the  per 
ilous  condition  of  his  affairs,  rather  to  have  tried  the  chances 
of  peace  than  those  of  war.  If  he  could  have  determined 
frankly  and  without  reserve  to  have  relinquished  the  church, 
and  called  the  leaders  of  the  presbyterian  party  in  both 
houses  to  his  councils,  it  is  impossible  to  prove  that  he  might 
not  both  have  regained  his  power  over  the  militia  in  no  long 
course  of  time,  and  prevailed  on  the  parliament  to  consent  to 
its  own  dissolution.  The  dread  that  party  felt  of  the  repub 
lican  spirit  rising  amongst  the  independents  would  have  in 
duced  them  to  place  in  the  hands  of  any  sovereign  they 
could  trust  full  as  much  authority  as  our  constitution  permits. 
But  no  one  who  has  paid  attention  to  the  history  of  that 
period  will  conclude  that  they  could  have  secured  the  king 
against  their  common  enemy,  had  he  even  gone  wholly  into 
their  own  measures.2  And  this  were  to  suppose  such  an  entire 
change  in  his  character  and  ways  of  thinking  as  no  external 
circumstances  could  produce.  Yet  his  prospects,  from  a  con 
tinuance  of  hostilities,  were  so  unpromising,  that  most  of  the 
royalists  would  probably  have  hailed  his  almost  unconditional 
submission  at  Uxbridge.  Even  the  steady  Richmond  and 

i  Rushworth,  Abr.  iv.  5oO.  At  the  of  about  five  hundred  gentlemen  who 
very  time  that  he  was  publicly  denying  lost  their  lives  for  Charles  in  the  civil 
his  employment  of  papists  he  wrote  to  war,  one  hundred  and  ninety-four  were 
Newcastle^  commanding  him  to  make  catholics.  They  were,  doubtless,  a  very 
use  of  all  his  subjects'  services,  without  powerful  faction  in  the  court  and  army, 
examining  their  consciences,  except  as  to  Lord  Spencer  (afterwards  earl  of  Sun- 
loyalty.  Ellis's  Letters,  iii.  291.  from  an  derland),  in  some  remarkable  letters  to 
original  in  the  Museum.  No  one  can  his  wife  from  the  king's  quarters  at 
rationally  blame  Charles  for  anything  in  Shrewsbury,  in  September.  1642,  speaks 
this  but  his  inveterate  and  useless  habit  of  the  insolency  of  the  papists  with  great 
of  falsehood.  See  Clarendon,  iii.  610.  dissatisfaction.  Sidney  Papers,  ii.  667. 

It  is  probable  that  some  foreign  cath-  2  It  cannot  be  doubted,  and  is  admitted 
olics  were  in  the  parliament's  service,  in  a  remarkable  conversation  of  Ilollis 
But  Dodd  says,  with  great  appearance  of  and  Whitelock  with  the  king  at  Oxford, 
truth,  that  no  one  English  gentleman  of  in  November.  1644,  that  the  exorbitant 
that  persuasion  was  in  arms  on  their  side,  terms  demanded  at  Uxbridge  were  car- 
Church  History  of  England,  iii.  28.  He  ried  by  the  violent  party,  who  disliked 
reports  as  a  matter  of  hearsay,  that,  out  all  pacification.  Whitelock,  p.  113. 


174  MISERIES    OF   THE   WAR.  CHAP.  X. 

Southampton,  it  is  said,  implored  him  to  yield,  and  deprecated 
his  misjudging  confidence  in  promises  of  foreign  aid  or  in  the 
successes  of  Montrose.1  The  more  lukewarm  or  discontented 
of  his  adherents  took  this  opportunity  of  abandoning  an  al 
most  hopeless  cause  :  between  the  breach  of  the  treaty  of 
Uxbridge  and  the  battle  of  Naseby,  several  of  the  Oxford 
peers  came  over  to  the  parliament,  and  took  an  engagement 
never  to  bear  arms  against  it.  A  few  instances  of  such  de 
fection  had  occurred  before.2 

It  remained  only,  after  the  rupture  of  the  treaty  at  Ux- 
Miseries  of  bridge,  to  try  once  more  the  fortune  of  war.  The 
the  war.  people,  both  in  the  king's  and  parliament's  quar 
ters,  but  especially  the  former,  heard  with  dismay  that 
peace  could  not  be  attained.  Many  of  the  perpetual  skir 
mishes  and  captures  of  towns,  which  made  every  man's  life 
and  fortune  precarious,  have  found  no  place  in  general  his 
tory,  but  may  be  traced  in  the  journal  of  "VVhitelock,  or  in 
,the  Mercuries  and  other  fugitive  sheets,  great  numbers  of 
which  are  still  extant.  And  it  will  appear,  I  believe,  from 
these,  that  scarcely  one  county  in  England  was  exempt,  at 
one  time  or  other  of  the  war,  from  becoming  the  scene  of 
this  unnatural  contest.  Compared,  indeed,  with  the  civil 
wars  in  France  in  the  preceding  century,  there  had  been 
fewer  acts  of  enormous  cruelty,  and  less  atrocious  breaches 
of  public  faith.  But  much  blood  had  been  wantonly  shed, 
and  articles  of  capitulation  had  been  very  indifferently  kept. 
'•  Either  side,"  says  Clarendon,  "  having  somewhat  to  object 
to  the  other,  the  requisite  honesty  and  justice  of  observing 
conditions  was  mutually,  as  it  were  by  agreement,  for  a  long 
time  violated."  3  The  royalist  army,  especially  the  cavalry, 
commanded  by  men  either  wholly  unprincipled,  or  at  least 
regardless  of  the  people,  and  deeming  them  ill  affected,  the 

i   Baillie,   ii.   91.       He    adds,    "That  indeed  the  earls  of  Holland  and  Bedford) 

•which  has  been  the  greatest  snare  to  the  was  sir  Edward  Bering,  who   came  into 

king  is  the   unhappy  success    of    Mon-  the  parliament's  quarters,  Feb.  1644.    He 

trose  in  Scotland."    There  seems,  indeed,  was  a  weak  man,  of  some  learning,  who 

great  reason   to  think  that  Charles,  al-  had  already   played  a  very   changeable 

ways  sanguine,  and  incapable  of  calcu-  part  before  the  war. 

lating    probabilities,    was    unreasonably  3  A   flagrant  instance  of  this  was  the 

elated  by  victories  from  which  no  per-  plunder  of  Bristol  by  Rupert,  in  breach  of 

manent  advantage  ought  to  have  been  the  capitulation.     I  suspect  that  it  was 

expected.     Burnet  confirms  this  on  good  the  policy  of  one  party  to  exaggerate  the 

authority.      Introduction  to  History  of  cruelties  of   the   other;    but    the    short 

his  Times.  51.  narratives  dispersed  at    the  time  give  a 

-  \Vhitelock,   109,   137,   142.      Rushw.  wretched  picture  of  slaughter  and  devas- 

Abr.  v.  163.     The  first  deserter  (except  tation. 


CHA.  I.  — 1042-49.       MISERIES   OF   THE   WAR. 


175 


princes  Rupert  and  Maurice,  Goring  and  "VVilmot,  lived  with 
out  restraint,  or  law,  or  military  discipline,  and  committed 
every  excess  even  in  friendly  quarters.1  An  ostentatious 
dissoluteness  became  characteristic  of  the  cavalier,  as  a 
formal  austerity  was  of  the  puritan  :  one  spoiling  his  neighbor 
in  the  name  of  God,  the  other  of  the  king.  The  parliament's 
troops  were  not  quite  free  from  these  military  vices,  but  dis 
played  them  in  a  much  less  scandalous  degree,  owing  to  their 
more  religious  habits  and  the  influence  of  their  presbyterian 
chaplains,  to  the  better  example  of  their  commanders,  and  to 
the  comparative,  though  not  absolute,  punctuality  of  their 
pay.2  But  this  pay  was  raised  through  unheard-of  assess 
ments,  especially  an  excise  on  liquors,  a  new  name  in  Eng 
land,  and  through  the  sequestration  of  the  estates  of  all  the 
king's  adherents:  resources  of  which  he  also  had  availed 
himself,  partly  by  the  rights  of  war,  partly  by  the  grant  of 
his  Oxford  parliament.3 


i  Clarendon  and  Whitclock,  passim. 
Baxter's  Life,  pp.  44,  55.  This  license 
of  Maurice's  and  Goring's  armies  in  the 
west  first  led  to  the  defensive  insurrec 
tion,  if  so  it  should  be  called,  of  the  club 
men  ;  that  is,  of  yeomen  and  country 
people,  armed  only  with  clubs,  who 
hoped,  by  numbers  and  concert,  to  resist 
effectually  the  military  marauders  of  both 
parties,  declaring  themselves  neither  for 
king  nor  parliament,  but  for  their  own 
liberty  and  property.  They  were  of  course 
regarded  with  dislike  on  both  sides  ;  by 
the  king's  party  when  they  first  appeared 
in  1644.  because  they  crippled  the  royal 
army's  operations,  and  still  more  openly 
by  the  parliament  next  year,  when  they 
opposed  Fairfax's  endeavor  to  carry  on 
the  war  in  the  counties  bordering  ou  the 
Severn.  They  appeared  at  times  in  great 
strength  :  but  the  want  of  arms  and  dis 
cipline  made  it  not  very  difficult  to  sup 
press  them.  Clarendon,  v.  197;  White- 
lock.  1.37  :  Parl.  Hist.  379,  390. 

The  kins  himself,  whose  disposition  was 
very  harsh  and  severe,  except  towards  the 
few  he  took  into  his  bosom,  can  hardly  be 
exonerated  from  a  responsibility  for  some 
acts  of  inhumanity  (see  \V~hitelock.  67. 
and  Somers  Tracts,  iv.  502,  v.  369  ; 
Masercs's  Tracts,  i.  144.  for  the  ill  treat 
ment  of  prisoners) ;  and  he  might  proba 
bly  have  checked  the  outrages  which  took 
place  at  the  storming  of  Leicester,  where 
he  was  himself  present.  Certainly  no 
imputation  of  this  nature  can  be  laid  at 
the  door  of  the  parliamentary  command 
ers,  though  some  of  them  were  guilty  of 


the  atrocity  of  putting  their  Irish  prison 
ers  to  death,  in  obedience,  however,  to  an 
ordinance  of  parliament.  Parl.  Hist  iii. 
295;  llushworth's  Abridgment,  v.  402. 
It  passed  October  24, 1644,  and  all  remiss- 
iiess  in  executing  it  was  to  be  reckoned  a 
favoring  of  the  Irish  rebellion.  When 
we  read,  as  we  do  perpetually,  these  vio 
lent  and  barbarous  proceedings  of  the  par 
liament,  is  it  consistent  with  honesty  or 
humanity  to  hold  up  that  assembly  to 
admiration,  while  the  faults  on  the  king's 
side  are  studiously  aggravated  ?  The 
partiality  of  Oldmixon,  Harris,  Macaulay, 
and  now  of  Mr.  Brodie  and  Mr.  Godwin, 
is  full  as  glaring,  to  say  the  very  least,  as 
that  of  Hume. 

2  Clarendon  and  Baxter. 

s  The  excise  was  first  imposed  by  an 
ordinance  of  both  houses  in  July,  1643 
(Husband's  Collection  of  Ordinances,  p. 
267),  and  afterwards  by  the  king's  con 
vention  at  Oxford.  See  a  view  of  the 
financial  expedients  adopted  by  both 
parties,  in  Lingard,  x.  243.  The  plate 
brought  in  to  the  parliament's  commis 
sioners  at  Guildhall,  in  1642.  for  which 
they  allowed  the  value  of  the  silver,  and 
one  shilling  per  ounce  more,  is  stated  by 
Neal  at  1,267,326/.,  an  extraordinary 
proof  of  the  wealth  of  London  :  yet  I  do 
not  know  his  authoritv.  though  it  is  prob 
ably  good.  The  university  of  Oxford 
gave  all  they  had  to  the  king,  but  could 
not.  of  course,  vie  with  the  citi/ens. 

The  sums  raised  within  the  parlia 
ment's  quarters,  from  the  beginning  of 
the  war  to  1647,  are  reckoned  in  a  pain- 


176  ITS   PROTRACTION'.  CHAP.  X. 

A  war  so  calamitous  seemed  likely  to  endure  till  it  had 
exhausted  the  nation.  With  all  the  parliament's  superiority, 
they  had  yet  to  subdue  nearly  half  the  kingdom.  The  Scots 
had  not  advanced  southward,  content  with  reducing  New 
castle  and  the  rest  of  the  northern  counties.  These  they 
treated  almost  as  hostile,  without  distinction  of  parties,  not 
only  exacting  contributions,  but  committing,  unless  they  are 
much  belied,  great  excesses  of  indiscipline  ;  their  presbyte- 
rian  gravity  not  having  yet  overcome  the  ancient  national  pro 
pensities.1  In  the  midland  and  western  parts  the  king  had 
ju-t  the  worse,  without  having  sustained  material  lo^s ;  and 
another  summer  might  pass  away  in  marches  and  counter 
marches,  in  skirmishes  of  cavalry,  in  tedious  sieges  of  paltry 
fortifications,  some  of  them  mere  country-houses,  which  noth 
ing  but  an  amazing  deficiency  in  that  branch  of  military 
science  could  have  rendered  tenable.  This  protraction  of 
Essex  and  the  war  had  long  given  rise  to  no  unnatural  discon- 
Manehester  fent  with  its  management,  and  to  suspicions,  first 

suspected  ,.  -„  /•  -SV  i       ^  •     ' 

of  luke-  of  Jbssex,  then  ot  Manchester  and  others  in  com- 
warmness.  mand,  as  if  they  were  secretly  reluctant  to  complete 
the  triumph  of  their  employers.  It  is,  indeed,  not  impossible 
that  both  these  peers,  especially  the  former,  out  of  their  de 
sire  to  see  peace  restored  on  terms  compatible  with  some 
degree  of  authority  in  the  crown,  and  with  the  dignity  of 
their  own  order,  did  not  always  press  their  advantages 
against  the  king  as  if  he  had  been  a  public  enemy.2  They 

phlet  of  that  year,  quoted  in  Sin-  See  Ludlow,  i.  133.  There  certainly  ap- 
clair's  Hist,  of  the  Ilevenue,  i.  283,  at  pears  to  have  been  a  want  of  military 
17.512.400/.  But,  on  reference  to  the  energy  on  this  occasion;  but  it  is  said 
tract  itself.  I  find  this  written  at  random,  by  Baillie  (ii.  76)  that  all  the  general 
The  contributions,  however,  were  really  officers,  Cromwell  not  excepted,  con- 
very  great ;  and.  if  we  add  those  to  the  curred  in  Manchester's  determination, 
king,  and  the  loss  by  waste  and  plunder,  Essex  had  been  suspected  from  the  time 
we  may  form  some  judgment  of  the  of  the  affair  at  Brentford,  or  rather  from 
effects  of  the  civil  war.  the  battle  of  Edgehill  (Baillie  and  Lud- 

1  The   independents   raised  loud  clam-  low);  and  his  whole  conduct,  except  in 
ors   against    the    Scots    army  ;    and  the  the  celebrated  march  to  relieve  Glouces- 
northern  counties  naturally  complained  ter,  confirmed  a  reasonable  distrust  either 
of  the    burden    of  supporting    them,  as  of  his  military  talents,  or  of  his  zeal  in 
well  as  of  their  excesses.     Many  passages  the   cause.      "He  loved  monarchy   and 
in  Whitelock's  journal  during  1645  and  nobility,"  says  Whitelock,  p.  108,  vi  and 
1646  relate   to   this.       Hollis   endeavors  dreaded  those  who  had  a  design  to  destroy 
to  deny  or  extenuate  the  charges  ;  but  he  both."     Yet  Essex  was  too  much  a  man 
is  too  prejudiced  a  writer  ;    and   Baillie  of   honor  to   enter  on   any    private   in- 
himself  acknowledges  a  great  deal.     Vol.  trigues  with  the  king.     The  other  peers 
ii   138.  142,  106.  employed   under  the  parliament,  Stam- 

2  The   chief  imputation  against  Man-  ford.  Denbigh.  Willoughby,  were  not  suc- 
chester  was  for  not  following  up  his  vie-  cessful  enough  to  redeem  the  suspicions 
tory  in  the  second  battle  of  Newbury,  that  fell  upon  their  zeal. 

with  which  Cromwell  openly  taxed  him.         All   our   republican   writers,   such    as 


CIIA.  I.  — 1642-49.      SELF-DENYING  ORDINANCE.  177 

might  ha\  e  thought  that,  having  drawn  the  sword  avowedly 
for  the  preservation  of  his  person  and  dignity  as  much  as  for 
the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  people,  they  were  no  further 
bound  by  their  trust  than  to  render  him  and  his  adherents 
sensible  of  the  impracticability  of  refusing  their  terms  of 
accommodation. 

There  could,  however,  be  no  doubt  that  Fairfax  and  Crom 
well  were  far  superior,  both  by  their  own  talents  Self-denying 
for  war  and  the  discipline  they  had  introduced  finance. 
into  their  army,  to  the  earlier  parliamentary  commanders  ; 
and  that,  as  a  military  arrangement,  the  self-denying  ordi 
nance  was  judiciously  conceived.  This,  which  took  from  all 
members  of  both  houses  their  commands  in  the  army,  or  civil 
employments,  was,  as  is  well  known,  the  first  great  victory  of 
the  independent  party  which  had  grown  up  lately  in  parlia 
ment  under  Vane  and  Cromwell.1  They  carried  another 
measure  of  no  less  importance,  collateral  to  the  former ;  the 
new-modelling,  as  it  was  called,  of  the  army  ;  reducing  it  to 
twenty-one  or  twenty-two  thousand  men  ;  discharging  such 
officers  and  soldiers  as  were  reckoned  unfit,  and  completing 
their  regiments  by  more  select  levies.  The  ordinance,  after 
being  once  rejected  by  the  lords,  passed  their  house  with 
some  modifications  in  April.2  But  many  joined  them  on 

Ludlow  and  Mrs.  Hutchinson  in  that  blamed  as  they  for  not  pressing  his  ad 
age.  Mrs.  Macaulay  and  Mr.  Brodie  more  vantages  with  vigor. 

of  late,  spe:ik  acrimoniously  of  Essex.  1  It  had  been  voted  by  the  lords  a  year 
'-  Most  will  be  of  opinion."  says  Mr.  B.  before,  Dec.  12.  1643,  "  That  the  opinion 
(History  of  British  Empire. "  iii.  565),  and  resolution  of  this  house  is  from 
"  that,  as  ten  thousand  pounds  a-year  henceforth  not  to  admit  the  members  of 
out  of  the  sequestered  lands  were  settled  either  house  of  parliament  into  any  place 
upon  him  for  his  services,  he  was  re-  or  office,  excepting  such  places  of  great 
warded  infinitely  beyond  his  merits."  trust  as  are  to  be  executed  by  persons  of 
The  reward  was  doubtless  magnificent ;  eminency  and  known  integrity,  and  are 
but  the  merit  of  Essex  was  this,  that  he  necessary  for  the  government  and  safety 
made  himself  the  most  prominent  object  of  the  kingdom."  But  a  motion  to  make 
of  vengeance  in  case  of  failure,  by  taking  this  resolution  into  an  ordinance  was  car- 
the  command  of  an  army  to  oppose  the  ried  in  the  negative.  Lords'  Journals  ; 
king  in  person  at  Edgehill ;  a  command  Parl.  Hist.  187.  The  first  motion  had 
of  which  no  other  man  in  his  rank  was  been  for  a  resolution  without  this  ex- 
capable,  and  which  could  not.  at  that  ception,  that  no  place  of  profit  should 
time,  have  been  intrusted  to  any  man  of  be  executed  by  the  members  of  either 
inferior  rank,  without  dissolving  the  house. 

whole  confederacy  of  the  parliament.  2  Whitelock,  pp.  118,  120.  It  was  op- 
It  is  to  be  observed,  moreover,  that  the  posed  by  him,  but  supported  by  Pier- 
two  battles  of  Newbury,  like  that  of  point,  who  carried  it  up  to  the  lords. 
Edgehill,  were  by  no  means  decisive  vie-  The  lords  were  chiefly  of  the  presby 
teries  on  the  side  of  the  parliament  ;  terian  party  ;  though  Say,  Wharton, 
and  that  it  is  not  clear  whether  either  and  a  few  more,  were  connected  with 
Essex  or  Manchester  could  have  pushed  the  independents.  They  added  a  proviso 
the  king  much  more  than  they  did.  Even  to  the  ordinance  raising  forces  to  be- 
after  Naseby  his  party  made  a  pretty  commanded  by  Fairfax,  that  110  officer 
long  resistance,  and  he  had  been  as  much  refusing  the  covenant  should  be  capable 
VOL.  II.  12 


178  DESPERATE  CONDITION  OF  CHAP.  X. 

this  occasion  for  those  military  reasons  which  I  have  men 
tioned,  deeming  almost  any  termination  of  the  war  better 
than  its  continuance.  The  king's  rejection  of  their  terms  at 
Uxbridge  had  disgusted,  however  unreasonably,  some  of  the 
men  hitherto  accounted  moderate,  such  as  the  earl  of  Nor 
thumberland  and  Pierpoint,  who  deeming  reconciliation  im 
practicable,  took  from  this  time  a  different  line  of  politics 
from  that  they  had  previously  followed,  and  were  either  not 
alive  to  the  danger  of  new-modelling  the  army,  or  willing  to 
hope  that  it  might  be  disbanded  before  that  danger  could  be 
come  imminent.  From  Fairfax,  too,  the  new  general,  they 
saw  little  to  fear  and  much  to  expect ;  while  Cromwell,  as  a 
member  of  the  house  of  commons,  was  positively  excluded 
by  the  ordinance  itself.  But,  through  a  successful  intrigue 
of  his  friends,  this  great  man,  already  not  less  formidable 
to  the  presbyterian  faction  than  to  the  royalists,  was  permit 
ted  to  continue  lieutenant-general.1  The  most  popular  justi 
fication  for  the  self-denying  ordinance,  and  yet  perhaps  its 
Battle  of  real  condemnation,  was  soon  found  at  Naseby  ;  for 
Naseby.  there  Fairfax  and  Cromwell  triumphed  not  only 
over  the  king  and  the  monarchy,  but  over  the  parliament 
and  the  nation. 

It  does  not  appear  to  me  that  a  brave  and  prudent  man, 
in  the  condition  of  Charles  I.,  had,  up  to  that 
condition  of  unfortunate  day,  any  other  alternative  than  a  vig- 
8  O1'ous  prosecution  of  the  war,  in  hope  of  such 
decisive  success  as,  though  hardly  within  proba 
ble  calculation,  is  not  unprecedented  in  the  changeful  tide  of 
fortune.  I  cannot  therefore  blame  him  either  for  refusing 
unreasonable  terms  of  accommodation  or  for  not  relinquish 
ing  altogether  the  contest.  But  after  his  defeat  at  Naseby 
his  affairs  were,  in  a  military  sense,  so  irretrievable  that,  in 
prolonging  the  war  with  as  much  obstinacy  as  the  broken 
state  of  his  party  would  allow,  he  displayed  a  good  deal  of 

of  serving,  which  was  thrown  out  in  the  ried,  the  measure  was  not  made  prospec- 

lower  house.     But  another  proviso  was  tive.     This,  which  most  historians  have 

carried  in  the  con.mons  by  82  to  63,  that  overlooked,  is  well  pointed  out   by  Mr. 

the    officers,    though   appointed    by    the  Godwin.      By  virtue  of  this  alteration, 

general,   should    be    approved    by   both  many  officers  were  elected  in  the  course 

houses   of   parliament.      Cromwell    was  of  1645  and  1646;  and  the  effect,  what- 

oceof  the  tellers  for  the  minority.    Com-  ever  might  be  designed,  was  very  advan- 

mous'  Journals.  Feb.  7  and  13,  1645.  tageous  to  the  republican  and  iudepeu- 

In  the  original  ordinance  the  members  dent  factions, 

of  both  houses  were  excluded  during  the  *  Whitelock,  p.  145. 
war;  but  in  the  second,  which  was  car- 


CHA.  I.  — 1042- 49.         THE  KING'S   AFFAIRS.  179 

that  indifference  to  the  sufferings  of  the  kingdom  and  of  his 
own  adherents  which  has  been  sometimes  imputed  to  him. 
There  was,  from  the  hour  of  that  battle,  one  only  safe  and 
honorable  course  remaining.  lie  justly  abhorred  to  reign, 
if  so  it  could  be  named,  the  slave  of  parliament,  with  the 
sacrifice  of  his  conscience  and  his  friends.  But  it  was  by 
no  means  necessary  to  reign  at  all.  The  sea  was  for  many 
months  open  to  him  ;  in  France,  or  still  better  in  Holland, 
he  would  have  found  his  misfortunes  respected,  and  an  asy 
lum  in  that  decent  privacy  which  becomes  an  exiled  sov 
ereign.  Those  very  hopes  which  he  too  fondly  cherished, 
and  which  lured  him  to  destruction  —  hopes  of  regaining 
power  through  the  disunion  of  his  enemies  —  might  have 
been  entertained  with  better  reason,  as  with  greater  safety, 
in  a  foreign  land.  It  is  not  perhaps  very  probable  that  he 
would  have  been  restored  ;  but  his  restoration  in  such  cir 
cumstances  seems  less  desperate  than  through  any  treaty 
that  he  could  conclude  in  captivity  at  home.1 

Whether  any  such  thoughts  of  abandoning  a  hopeless  con 
test  were  ever  entertained  by  the  king  during  this  particular 
period,  it  is  impossible  to  pronounce  ;  we  should  infer  the 
contrary  from  all  his  actions.  It  must  be  said  that  many  of 
his  counsellors  seem  to  have  been  as  pertinacious  as  himself, 
having  strongly  imbibed  the  same  sanguine  spirit,  and  look 
ing  for  deliverance,  according  to  their  several  fancies,  from 
the  ambition  of  Cromwell  or  the  discontent  of  the  Scots. 
But,  whatever  might  have  been  the  king's  disposition,  he 
would  not  have  dared  to  retire  from  England.  That  sinis 
ter  domestic  rule  to  which  he  had  so  long  been  subject  con 
trolled  every  action.  Careless  of  her  husband's  happiness, 
and  already  attached  probably  to  one  whom  she  afterwards 
married,  Henrietta  longed  only  for  his  recovery  of  a  power 
which  would  become  her  own.'2  Hence,  while  she  constantly 

l  [It  was  the  opinion  of  Montrcuil  that  2  Whether  there  are  sufficient  grounds 

the    plan  of  flight  which  the  king  was  for  concluding  that  Henrietta's  connec- 

nieditating  before  he  took  refuge  with  the  tion  with  Jermyn  was  criminal  I  will  not 

Scots  'Ms  by  far  the  best,  and  in  every  pretend   to   decide;    though   Warburton 

point  of  view  necessary  ;  for  the  parlia-  has  settled  the  matter  in  a  very  sum- 

ment  will  by  that  time  have  fallen  into  mary   style.      See  one   of    his   notes   on 

dissensions,  and   the   throne  will  be  far  Clarendon,  vol.  vii.  p.  636.     But  I  doubt 

more  easily  restored,  if  the  king   come  whether   the    bishop    had  authority  for 

back  to  it  from  abroad,  than  if  he  were  what  he  there  says,  though  it  is  likely 

to  issue  from  a  prison.     I  only  fear  that  enough   to  be  true.     See  also  a  note  of 

flight  will,  perhaps,  be  no  longer  possi-  lord  Dartmouth  ou  Burnet.  i.  63. 
ble."     Jan.  10,  1646.     Kauuier,  p.  340.] 


180  CHARLES   TAKES   REFUGE  CHAP.  X. 

laid  her  injunctions  on  Charles  never  to  concede  anything  as 
to  the  militia  or  the  Irish  catholics,  she  became  desirous, 
when  no  other  means  presented  itself,  that  he  should  sacri 
fice  what  was  still  nearer  to  his  heart,  the  episcopal  church- 
government.  The  queen-regent  of  France,  whose  sincerity 
in  desiring  the  king's  restoration  there  can  be  no  ground  to 
deny,1  was  equally  persuaded  that  he  could  hope  for  it  on  no 
less  painful  conditions.  They  reasoned  of  course  very  plau 
sibly  from  the  great  precedent  of  flexible  consciences,  the 
reconciliation  of  Henrietta's  illustrious  father  to  the  catholic 
church.  As  he  could  neither  have  regained  his  royal  power 
nor  restored  peace  to  France  without  this  compliance  with 
his  subjects'  prejudices,  so  Charles  could  still  less  expect,  in 
circumstances  by  no  means  so  favorable,  that  he  should  avoid 
The  king  a  concession,  in  the  eyes  of  almost  all  men  but 
throws  him-  himself  of  incomparably  less  importance.  It  was 

self  into  the      ,  .  ^  l    .         .  „ 

hands  of  in  expectation,  or  perhaps  rather  in  the  hope,  ot 
this  sacrifice  that  the  French  envoy  Montreuil 
entered  on  his  ill-starred  negotiation  for  the  king's  taking 
shelter  with  the  Scots  army.  And  it  must  be  confessed  that 
several  of  his  best  friends  were  hardly  less  anxious  that  he 
should  desert  a  church  he  could  not  protect.2  They  doubted 

i  Clarendon  speaks  often  in  his  His-  French  connections  ;  and  his  passionate 
tory.  and  still  more  frequently  in  his  loyalty  made  him  think  it  a  crime,  or  at 
private  letters,  with  great  resentment  of  least  a  piece  of  base  pusillanimity,  in 
the  conduct  of  France,  and  sometimes  of  foreign  states,  to  keep  on  any  terms  with 
Holland,  during  our  civil  wars.  I  must  the  rebellious  parliament.  The  case  was 
confess  that  I  see  nothing  to  warrant  altered  after  the  retirement  of  the  regent 
this.  The  States-General,  against  whom  Anne  from  power  :  Mazarin's  latter  con- 
Charles  had  so  shamefully  been  plotting,  duct  was,  as  is  well  known,  exceedingly 
interfered  as  much  for  the  purpose  of  adverse  to  the  royal  cause, 
mediation  as  they  could  with  the  slight-  The  account  given  by  Mr.  D'Israeli  of 
est  prospect  of  success,  and  so  as  to  give  Tabran's  negotiations  in  the  fifth  volume 
offence  to  the  parliament  (Rush worth  of  his  Commentaries  on  the  Reign  of 
Abridged,  v.  567;  Baillie,  ii.  78;  White-  Charles  I.,  though  it  does  not  contain 
lock,  141. 148  ;  Harris's  Life  of  Cromwell,  anything  very  important,  tends  to  show 
246) :  and  as  to  France,  though  Kichelieu  Mazarin's  inclination  towards  the  royal 
had  instigated  the  Scots  maleconteuts,  cause  in  1644  and  1645. 
and  possibly  those  of  England,  yet  after  2  Colepepper  writes  to  Ashburnham, 
his  death,  in  1642,  no  sort  of  suspicion  in  February,  1646,  to  advance  tho  Scots 
ought  to  lie  on  the  French  government ;  treaty  with  all  his  power.  "  It  is  the 
the  whole  conduct  of  Anne  of  Austria  only  way  left  to  save  the  crown  and  the 
having  been  friendly,  and  both  the  mis-  kingdom  ;  all  other  tricks  will  deceive 
sion  of  Harcourt  in  1643,  and  the  present  you.  ...  It  is  no  time  to  dally  on  dis- 
negotiations  of  Montreuil  and  Bellievre.  tinctions  and  criticisms.  All  the  world 
perfectly  well  intended.  That  Mazarin  will  laugh  at  them  when  a  crown  is  in 
made  promises  of  assistance  which  he  had  question."  Clar.  Papers,  ii.  207. 
no  design,  nor  perhaps  any  power,  to  The  king  had  positively  declared  his 
fulfil,  is  true  ;  but  this  is  the  common  resolution  not  to  consent  to  the  estab- 
trick  of  such  statesmen,  and  argues  no  lishment  of  presbytery.  This  had  so 
malevolent  purpose.  But  Hyde,  out  of  much  disgusted  both  the  Scots  and  Eng- 
his  just  dislike  of  the  queen,  hated  all  lish  presbyterians  (for  the  latter  had  been 


CH...  I.  — 1642-49.  WITH   THE   SCOTS.  181 

not,  reasoning  from  their  own  characters,  that  he  would  ul 
timately  give  way.  But  that  Charles,  unchangeably  resolved 
on  this  head,1  should  have  put  himself  in  the  power  of  men 
fully  as  bigoted  as  himself  (if  he  really  conceived  that  the 
Scots  presbyterians  would  shed  their  blood  to  reestablish 
the  prelacy  they  abhorred),  was  an  additional  proof  of  that 
delusion  which  made  him  fancy  that  no  government  could  be 
established  without  his  concurrence ;  unless  indeed  we  should 
rather  consider  it  as  one  of  those  desperate  courses  into 
which  he  who  can  foresee  nothing  but  evil  from  every  cal 
culable  line  of  action  will  sometimes  plunge  at  a  venture, 
borrowing  some  ray  of  hope  from  the  uncertainty  of  their 
consequences.2 

It  was  an  inevitable  effect  of  this  step  that  the  king  sur 
rendered  his  personal  liberty,  which  he  never  afterwards 
recovered.  Considering  his  situation,  we  may  at  first  think 
the  parliament  tolerably  moderate  in  offering  nearly  the  same 
terms  of  peace  at  Newcastle  which  he  had  rejected  at  Ux- 
bridge  ;  the  chief  difference  being  that  the  power  of  the 
militia,  which  had  been  demanded  for  commissioners  nomi 
nated  and  removable  by  the  two  houses  during  an  indefinite 
period,  was  now  proposed  to  reside  in  the  two  houses  for  the 
space  of  twenty  years ;  which  rather  more  unequivocally 
indicated  their  design  of  making  the  parliament  perpetual.3 

concerned  in  the  negotiation),  that  Mon-  to     Ormond.     which     was     intercepted, 

treuil  wrote    to    say   he    thought    they  wherein  he  assured  him  of  his  expecta- 

would  rather  make  it  up  with  the  inde-  tion  that  their  army  would  join  with  his, 

pendents  than  treat  again.     '•  De  sorte  and  act  in  conjunction  with  Montrose,  to 

qu'il  ne  faut  plus  marchander.  et  que  V.  procure  a  happy  peace  and  the  restora- 

M.  se  doit  hater  d'envoyer  aux  deux  par-  tion    of  his  rights.     U'hitelock,   p.  208. 

lemens  son  consentiment  aux  trois  pro-  Charles  had   bad  luck  with  his   letters, 

positions  d'Uxbridge  ;   ce  qu'ecant    fait,  which   fell,  too  frequently  for   his  fame 

elle   sera   en   surete   dans    1'armee   d'E-  and  interest,  into  the  hands  of  his  ene- 

cosse."     (15th  Jan.  1640.)     P.  211.  mies.     But  who.  save  this  most  ill-judg- 

i  "I  assure  you,''  he  writes  to  Capel,  ing  of  princes, 'would  have  entertained 

Hopton.   &c.,   Feb.  2,  1646.   %i  whatever  an  idea  that  the  Scots  presbyterian  army 

paraphrases  or  prophecies  may  be  made  would   cooperate   with   Montrose,   whom 

upon  my  last  message  (pressing  the  two  they  abhorred,  and  very  justly,  for  his 

houses  to  consent  to  a  personal  treaty),  I  treachery   and   cruelty,   above   all    men 

shall   never   part  with  the  church,  the  living  ? 

essentials  of  my  crown,  or  my  friends."         3  parl.  Hist   499.    Whitelock.  215.218. 

P.    206.      Baillie  could    not    believe    the  It  was  voted.  17th  June,  that  after  these 

report   that  the   king   intended  to   take  tsventy  years  the  king  was  to  exercise  no 

refuge  in   the    Scots   ;>rmy,   as    '•  there  power  over  the  militia  without  the  pre- 

would  be  no  shelter  there  for  him.  un-  vious  consent  of  parliament,  who  were  to 

less  he  would  take  the  covenant,  and  fol-  pass  a  bill  at  any  time  respecting  it,  if 

low  the  advice  of  his  parliament.     Hard  they  should  judge  the  kingdom's  safety 

pills  to  be  swallowed  by  a  wilful  and  an  to  be  concerned,  which  should  be  valid 

unadvised  prince.''     Vol.  ii.  p.  203.  without   the   king's   assent.     Commons' 

-  Not   long  after  the  king  had  taken  Journal, 
shelter  with  the  Scots  he  wrote  a  letter 


182  CHARLES'S   STRUGGLES  CHAP.  X. 

But  in  fact  they  had  so  abridged  the  royal  prerogative  by 
their  former  propositions,  that,  preserving  the  decent   sem 
blance  of  monarchy,  scarce  anything  further  could  be  exacted. 
The  king's  circumstances  were,  however,  so  altered  that  by 
persisting  in  his  refusal  of  those  propositions  he  excited  a 
natural  indignation  at  his  obstinacy  in  men  who  felt  their 
own  right  (the  conqueror's  right)  to  dictate  terms  at  pleas 
ure.     Yet  this  might  have  had  a  nobler  character  of  firmness 
if,  during  all  the  tedious  parleys  of  the  last  three  years  of 
his  life,  he  had  not  by  tardy  and  partial  concessions  given  up 
so  much  of  that  for  which  he  contended,  as  rather  to  appear 
like  a  peddler  haggling  for  the  best  bargain  than  a  sovereign 
unalterably  determined  by  conscience  and  public  spirit.     We 
must,  however,  forgive  much  to  one  placed  in  such  unparal 
leled  ditliculties.     Charles  had  to  contend,  during  his  unhappy 
residence  at  Newcastle,  not  merely  with  revolted  subjects  in 
Charles's        tne  Pride  of  conquest,  and  with  bigoted  priests,  as 
struggles  to     blindly  confident  in  one  set  of  doubtful  proposi- 
epScopacy,     tions  as  he  was  in  the  opposite,  but  with  those  he 
adSceof1^     had  trusted  the  most  and  loved  the  dearest.     We 
the  queen       have  in  the   Clarendon  State  Papers  a  series  of 
and  others.     ]etters  from    paris?  written,  some   by    the   queen, 
others  jointly  by  Colepepper,  Jermyn,  and  Ashburnhain,  or 
the  two  former,  urging  him  to  sacrifice  episcopacy,  as  the 
necessary   means   of    his   restoration.     We   have   the  king's 
answers,  that  display  in  an  interesting  manner  the  struggles 
of  his  mind  under  this   severe  trial.1     No  candid  reader,  I 
think,  can  doubt  that  a  serious  sense  of  obligation  was  pre 
dominant  in   Charles's  persevering    fidelity  to   the    English 
church.      For  though  he  often  alleges  the  incompatibility  of 
presbyterianism   with   monarchy,  and   says    very  justly,  "  I 
am  most  confident  that  religion  will  much  sooner  regain  the 
militia  than  the  militia  will  religion,"  2  yet  these  arguments 

i  P.  248.     u  Show  me  any  precedent,"  antimonarchical."    P.  260.     See  also  p. 

he   says    in    another    place,    "  wherever  273. 

presbyterian  government  and  regal  was  -  "  The   design  is  to  unite   you  with 

together   without    perpetual    rebellions,  the  Scots  nation  and  the   presbyterians 

which  was  the  cause  that  necessitated  the  of  England  against  the  antimonarchical 

king  my  father   to  change   that  govern-     party,  the  independents If  by  con- 

ment  in  Scotland.  And  even  in  France,  science  it  is  intended  to  assert  that  epis- 
where  they  are  but  on  tolerance,  which  copacy  is  jure  divino  exclusive,  where 
in  likelihood  shall  cause  moderation,  did  by  110  protestarit,  or  rather  Christian, 
they  ever  sit  still  so  long  as  they  had  church  can  be  acknowledged  for  sucii 
power  to  rebel  ?  And  it  cannot  be  other-  without  a  bishop,  we  must  therein  crave 
wise  ;  for  the  ground  of  their  doctrine  is  leave  only  to  differ.  And  if  we  be  iti 


CIIA.  I.  — 1642-49.     TO   PRESERVE   EPISCOPACY.  183 

seem  rather  intended  to  weigh  with  those  who  slighted  his 
scruples  than  the  paramount  motives  of  his  heart.  He 
could  hardly  avoid  perceiving  that,  as  Colepepper  told  him 
in  his  rough  style,  the  question  was  whether  he  would  choose 
to  be  a  king  of  presbytery  or  no  king.  But  the  utmost 
length  which  lie  could  prevail  on  himself  to  go  was  to  offer 
the  continuance  of  the  presbyterian  discipline,  as  established 
by  the  parliament,  for  three  years,  during  which  a  conference 
of  divines  might  be  had,  in  order  to  bring  about  a  settlement. 
Even  this  he  would  not  propose  without  consulting  two 
bishops,  Juxon  and  Duppa,  whether  he  could  lawfully  do  so. 
They  returned  a  very  cautious  answer,  assenting  to  the 
proposition  as  a  temporary  measure,  but  plainly  endeavoring 
to  keep  the  king  fixed  in  his  adherence  to  the  episcopal 
church.1 

Pressed  thus  on  a  topic  so  important  above  all  others  in 
his  eyes,  the  king  gave  a  proof  of  his  sincerity  by  greater 
concessions  of  power  than  he  had  ever  intended.  He  had 
some  time  before  openly  offered  to  let  the  parliament  name 
all  the  commissioners  of  the  militia  for  seven  years,  and  all 
the  oilicers  of  state  and  judges  to  hold  their  places  for  life.'2 

an  error,  we  are  in  good  company,  there  after  by  virtue  of  the  ordinance  directing 

not  being,  as  we  have  cause  to  believe,  the  wale  of  bishops'  lands,  Nov.  16,  1646. 

six  persons  of  the  protestaut  religion  of  Parl.   Hist.    528.      A  committee  was  ap- 

the  other  opinion.   .   .   .  Come,  the  ques-  pointed,  Nov.   2.   1646,   to  consider  of  a 

tion  in  short  is,  whether  you  will  choose  fitting  maintenance    to    be    allowed   the 

to  be  a  king  of  presbytery,  or   no  king,  bishops,   both  those  who    had  remained 

and  yet   presbytery  or  perfect  indepen-  under  the  parliament,  and  those  who  had 

dency  to  be  .'"    1*.  263.    They  were,  how-  deserted  it.     Journals.     1  was  led  to  this 

ever,  as  much  against  his  giving  up  the  passage  by  Mr.  Godwin,  Hist,  of  Com- 

militia  or   his  party,  as  in  favor  of  his  monwealth,  ii.  250.     Whether  anything 

abolishing  episcopacy.  further  was    done  I  have  not    observed. 

Charles  was  much  to  be  pitied  through-  But  there  is  an  order  in  the  Journals,  1st 

out  all  this  period;   none  of  his  corre-  May.  1647,  that,  whereas  divers  of  the  late 

spondents  understood  the  state  of  affairs  tenants  of  Dr.  Juxon,  late  bishop  of  Lon- 

so  well  as  himself :  he  was  witli  the  Scots,  don,  have  refused  to  pay  the  rents  or  other 

and  saw  what  they  were  made  of,  while  sums  of  money  due  to  him  as  bishop  of 

the  others   fancied   absurdities   through  London,  at  or  before  the  1st  of  November 

their  own   private  self-interested  views,  last,  the  trustees  of  bishops'  lands  are  di- 

It  is  very  certain  that  by  sacrificing  epis-  rected  to  receive  the  same,  and  pay  them 

copacy  he  would  not  have  gained  a  step  over  to  Dr.  Juxon.    Though  this  was  only 

with  the  parliament :  and  as  to  reigning  justice,  it  shows  that  justice  was  done, 

in   Scotland  alone,  suspected,   insulted,  at   least  in   this  instance,  to   a.   bishop, 

degraded,  this  would,  perhaps,  just  have  Juxon  must  have   been  a  very  prudent 

been   possible  for  himself,   but    neither  and  judicious  man,  though  not  learned; 

Henrietta   nor   her   friends    would   have  which  probably  was  all  the  better, 

found  an  asylum  there.  2  Jan.  29, 1646.    Parl.  Hist.  436.    White- 

1  Juxon  had  been  well  treated  by  the  lock  says.  ••  Many  sober  men  and  lovers 

parliament,  in  consequence  of  his  prudent  of  peace  were  earnest   to   have  complied 

abstinence  from  politics,  and  residence  in  with  what  the  king  proposed  ;    but  the 

their  quarters.     lie  dates  his  answer  to  major  part  of  the   house  was  contrary, 

the  king  from  his  palace  at  Fulham.     He  and  the  new-elected  members  joined  those 

was,  however,  dispossessed  of  it  not  long  who  were  averse  to  comy'.i nice."    I'.2u7. 


184  BAD   CONDUCT   OF  THE  QUEEN.  CIIAI>.  X. 

He  now  empowered  a  secret  agent  in  London,  Mr.  William 
Murray,  privately  to  sound  the  parliamentary  leaders,  if  they 
would  consent  to  the  establishment  of  a  moderated  episco 
pacy  after  three  or  five  years,  on  condition  of  his  departing 
from  the  right  of  the  militia  during  his  whole  life.1  This 
dereliction  of  the  main  ground  of  contest  brought  down  the 
queen's  indignation  on  his  head.  She  wrote  several  letters, 
in  an  imperious  and  unfeeling  tone,  declaring  that  she  would 
never  set  her  foot  in  England  as  long  as  the  parliament 
should  exist.2  Jermyn  and  Colepepper  assumed  a  style 
hardly  less  dictatorial  in  their  letters,3  till  Charles  withdrew 
the  proposal,  which  Murray  seems  never  to  have  communi 
cated.4  It  was  indeed  the  evident  effect  of  despair  and  a 
natural  weariness  of  his  thorny  crown.  He  now  began  to 
express  serious  thoughts  of  making  his  escape,5  and  seems 
even  to  hint  more  than  once  at  a  resignation  of  his  government 
to  the  prince  of  Wales.  But  Henrietta  forbade  him  to  think 
of  an  escape,  and  alludes  to  the  other  with  contempt  and 
Bad  conduct  indignation.6  With  this  selfish  and  tyrannical 
of  the  queen,  woman,  that  life  of  exile  and  privacy  which  religion 
and  letters  would  have  rendered  tolerable  to  the  king,  must 
have  been  spent  in  hardly  less  bitterness  than  on  a  dishon- 

1  Clar.  Papers,  p.  275.  monastery,  in  consequence  of  his  refusal 

2  Id.  pp.  294,  297,  300.     She  had  said  to  comply  with  her  wishes :  p.  270.     See 
as  much  before  (King's  Cabinet  Opened,  also    Montreuil's    Memoir   in    Thurloe's 
p.  28) ;  so  that  this  was  not  a  burst  of  State   Papers,   i.  85,  whence   it  appears 
passion.      "  Conservez-vous   la   militia,"  that  the  king  had  thoughts  of  making 
she    says    in    one    place    (p.   271),    ';  et  his  escape  in  Jan.  1647. 
n'abandonnez  jamais  ;   et  par  cela   tout  6  "  For  the  proposition  to  Bellievre  (a 
reviendra."   Charles,  however,  disclaimed  French   agent  at  Newcastle,  after  Mon- 
all  idea  of  violating  his  faith  in  case  of  a  treuil's  recall),  I  hate  it.     If  any  such 
treaty  (p.  273) ;   but  observed  as  to  the  thing  should   be   made  public,  you  are 
militia,  with  some  truth,  that  "  the  re-  undone  ;   your  enemies  will  make  a  mali- 
taining   of  it  is  not  of  so  much  conse-  cious  use  of  it.     Be  sure  you  never  own 
quence  —  I  am  far  from  saying  none —  it  again  in  any  discourse,  otherwise  than 
as  is  thought,  without  the  concurrence  of  as  intended  as  a  foil,  or  an  hyperbole,  or 
other  things  ;  because  the  militia  here  is  any  other  ways,  except  in  sober  earnest," 
not,  as  in  France  and  other  countries,  a  &c.  p.  304.     The  queen  and  her  counsel- 
formed  powerful  strength ;   but  it  serves  lors,  however,   seem   afterwards  to  have 
more   to   hold  off  ill   than  to  do  much  retracted   in  some   measure   what    they 
good.     And  certainly  if  the  pulpits  teach  had  said  about  his  escape  ;  and  advised 
not  obedience   (which  will   never  be,  if  that,  if  he  could  not   be  suffered  to  go 
presbyterian   government   be  absolutely  into  Scotland,    he  would  try  Ireland  or 
settled),  the  crown  will  have  little  com-  Jersey  ;  p.  312. 

fort  of  the  militia."    P.  296.  Her  dislike  to  the  king's  escape  showed 

3  P.  301.  itself,    according  to   Clarendon,   vi.  192, 

4  P.  313.  even  at  a  time  when  it  appeared  the  only 

5  Pp.  245.  247,  278.  314.     In  one  place  means  to  secure  his  life,  during  his  con- 
he  says   that   he    will  go   to   France  to  finement  in  the  Isle  of  Wight.    Some  may 
clear  his  reputation  to  the  queen  ;  p.  265.  suspect  that  Henrietta  had  consoled  her- 
He  wrote  in   great    distress  of  mind   to  self  too  well  with  lord  Jermyu  to  wish,  for 
Jermyn  and  Colepepper,  on  her  threat-  her  husband's  return. 

eniug  to  retire  from  all  business  into  a 


CHA.  I.  — 1642-49.   LETTERS  TAKEN  AT  NASEBY.       185 

ored  throne.  She  had  displayed  in  France  as  little  virtue 
as  at  home  :  the  small  resources,  which  should  have  been 
frugally  dispensed  to  those  who  had  lost  all  for  the  royal 
cause,  were  squandered  upon  her  favorite  and  her  French 
servants.1  So  totally  had  she  abandoned  all  regard  to  Eng 
lish  interests,  that  Hyde  and  Capel,  when  retired  to  Jersey, 
the  governor  of  which,  sir  Edward  Carteret,  still  held  out 
for  the  king,  discovered  a  plan  formed  by  the  queen  and 
Jermyn  to  put  that  island  into  the  hands  of  France.2  They 
were  exceedingly  perplexed  at  this  discovery,  conscious  of 
the  impossibility  of  defending  Jersey,  and  yet  determined 
not  to  let  it  be  torn  away  from  the  sovereignty  of  the  British 
crown.  No  better  expedient  occurred  than,  as  soon  as  the 
project  should  be  ripe  for  execution,  to  despatch  a  message  "to 
the  earl  of  Northumberland  or  some  other  person  of  honour," 
asking  for  aid  to  preserve  the  island.  This  was  of  course, 
in  other  words,  to  surrender  it  into  the  power  of  the  par 
liament,  which  they  would  not  name  even  to  themselves. 
But  it  was  evidently  more  consistent  with  their  loyalty  to 
the  king  and  his  family  than  to  trust  the  good  faith  of  Maz- 
arin.  The  scheme,  however,  was  abandoned,  for  we  hear  no 
more  of  it. 

It  must,  however,  be  admitted  at  the  present  day,  that 
there  was  no  better  expedient  for  saving  the  king's  life,  and 
some  portion  of  the   royal  authority  for  his  descendants   (a 
frank    renunciation   of   episcopacy   perhaps   only   excepted), 
than  such  an  abdication,  the  time  for  which  had  come  before 
he  put  himself  into  the  hands  of  the  Scots.      His  own  party 
had  been  weakened,  and  the  number  of  his  well-wishers  dimin 
ished,  by  something  more  than  the  events  of  war.     The  last 
unfortunate  year  had,  in  two  memorable  instances,  revealed 
fresh   proofs  of  that   culpable  imprudence,  speaking   mildly, 
which  made  wise  and  honest  men  hopeless  of  any  permanent 
accommodation.     At  the  battle  of  Naseby  copies 
of  some  letters  to  the  queen,  chiefly  written  about  Of  letters 
the  time  of  the  treaty  of  Uxbridge,  and  strangely  ^JJ,^ 
preserved,  fell  into  the  hands  of  the   enemy,  and 
were  instantly  published.3     No  other  losses  of  that  fatal  day 

i  Clar.  Papers,  p.  344.  whole  rabble  of  Charles's  admirers.     But 

-  P.  279.  it  coukl  not  reasonably  be  expected  that 

3  Clarendon  and  Hume  inveigh  against  such    material    papers    should    be    kept 

the  parliament  for  this  publication;   in  back :  nor  were  the  parliament  under  any 

which  they  are  of  course  followed  by  the  obligation  to  do  so.     The  former  writer 


18G 


LETTERS  TAKEX  AT  XASEBY. 


CHAP.  X. 


were  more  injurious  to  his  cause.  Besides  many  proofs  of 
a  contemptible  subserviency  to  one  justly  deemed  irreconcil 
able  to  the  civil  and  religious  interests  of  the  kingdom,  and 
many  expressions  indicating  schemes  and  hopes  inconsistent 
with  any  practicable  peace,  and  especially  a  design  to  put  an 
end  to  the  parliament,1  he  gave  her  power  to  treat  with  the 
English  catholics,  promising  to  take  away  all  penal  laws 
against  them  as  soon  as  God  should  enable  him  to  do  so,  in 
consideration  of  such  powerful  assistance  as  might  deserve  so 
great  a  favor,  and  enable  him  to  effect  it.'2  Yet  it  was  cer- 


insinuates  that  they  were  garbled  ;  but 
Charles  himself  never  pretended  this  (see 
Supplement  to  Evelyn's  Diary,  p.  101); 
nor  does  there  seem  any  foundation  for 
the  surmise.  His  owu  friends  garbled 
them,  however,  after  the  Restoration : 
some  passages  are  omitted  in  the  edition 
of  King  Charles's  Works  ;  so  that  they 
can  only  be  read  accurately  in  the  origi 
nal  publication,  called  the  King's  Cabinet 
Opened,  a  small  tract  in  quarto  ;  or  in  the 
modern  compilations,  such  as  the  Par 
liamentary  History,  which  have  copied  it. 
Ludlow  says  he  has  been  informed  that 
some  of  the  letters  taken  at  N.iseby  were 
suppressed  by  those  intrusted  with  them, 
•who  since  the  king's  restoration  have 
been  rewarded  for  it.  Memoirs,  i.  156. 
But  I  should  not  be  inclined  to  believe 
this. 

There  is,  however,  an  anecdote  which 
may  be  mentioned  in  this  place :  a  Dr. 
Hickman.  afterwards  bishop  of  Derry, 
wrote  in  1690  the  following  letter  to  Sprat, 
bishop  of  Rochester,  a  copy  of  which,  in 
Dr.  Birch's  handwriting,  may  be  found 
in  the  British  Museum.  It  was  printed 
by  him  in  the  Appendix  to  the  ''  Inquiry 
into  the  Share  K.  Charles  I.  had  in  Gla 
morgan's  Transactions,"  and  from  thence 
by  Harris  in  his  Life  of  Charles  I.  p.  144. 

>'  My  Lord, 

•'  Last  week  Mr.  Bennet  [a  bookseller] 
left  with  me  a  manuscript  of  letters  from 
king  Charles  I.  to  his  queen  ;  and  said  it 
was  your  lordship's  desire  and  Dr.  Pell- 
ing's  that  my  lord  Rochester  should  read 
them  over,  tand  see  what  was  fit  to  be 
left  out  in  the  intended  edition  of  them. 
Accordingly,  my  lord  has  read  them  over, 
and  upon  the  whole  matter  says  he  is 
very  much  amazed  at  the  design  of  print 
ing  them,  and  thinks  that  the  king's  ene 
mies  could  not  have  done  him  a  greater 
discourtesy.  He  showed  me  many  pas 
sages  which  detract  very  much  from  the 
reputation  of  the  king's  prudence,  and 
somethiiig  from  his  integrity  ;  and  in 
short  he  cau  fniJ  nothing  throughout 


the  whole  collection  but  what  will  lessen 
the  character  of  the  king  and  offend  all 
those  who  wish  well  to  his  memory.  He 
thinks  it  very  unfit  to  expose  any  man's 
conversation  and  familiarity  with  his 
wife,  but.  especially  that  king's  ;  for  it 
was  apparently  his  blind  side,  and  his 
enemies  gained  great  advantage  by  show 
ing  it.  But  my  lord  hopes  his  friends 
will  spare  him  ;  and  therefore  he  has  or 
dered  me  not  to  deliver  the  book  to  the 
bookseller,  but  put  it  into  your  lordship's 
hands  ;  and  when  you  have  read  it,  he 
knows  you  will  be  of  his  opinion.  If 
your  lordship  has  not  time  to  read  it  all, 
my  lord  has  turned  down  some  leaves 
where  he  makes  his  chief  objections.  If 
your  lordship  sends  any  servant  to  town, 
I  beg  you  will  order  him  to  call  here  for 
the  book,  and  that  you  would  take  care 
about  it." 

Though  the  description  of  these  letters 
answers  perfectly  to  those  in  the  King's 
Cabinet  Opened,  which  certainly  ''de 
tract  much  from  the  reputation  of 
Charles's  prudence,  and  something  from 
his  integrity,"  it  is  impossible  that  Roch 
ester  and  the  others  could  be  ignorant 
of  so  well-known  a  publication  ;  and  we 
must  consequently  infer  that  some  let 
ters  injurious  to  the  king's  character 
have  been  suppressed  by  the  caution  of 
his  friends. 

1  The   king    had    long    entertained   a 
notion,  in  which  he  was  encouraged  by 
the  attorney-general  Herbert,   that   the 
act  against  the  dissolution  of  the  parlia 
ment  without  its  own  consent  was  void 
in  itself.     Life  of  Clarendon,  p.  86.     This 
high  monarchical  theory  of  the  nullity 
of  statutes  in  restraint  of  the  prerogative 
was  never  thoroughly  eradicated  till  the 
Revolution,  and  in  all   contentions   be 
tween   the   crown    aad    parliament    de 
stroyed  the  confidence  without  which  no 
accommodation  could  be  durable. 

2  '•  There  is  little  or  no  appearance  but 
that  this  summer  will  be  the  hottest  for 
war  of  any  that  hatu  been  yet;  and  be 


CHA.  I.  — 1042-49.       GLAMORGAN'S   TREATY. 


187 


tain  that  no  parliament,  except  in  absolute  duress,  would  con 
sent  to  repeal  these  laws.  To  what  sort  of  victory  therefore 
did  he  look  ?  It  was  remembered  that,  on  taking  the  sacra 
ment  at  Oxford  some  time  before,  he  had  solemnly  protested 
that  he  would  maintain  the  protestant  religion  of  the  church 
of  England,  without  any  connivance  at  popery.  What  trust 
could  be  reposed  in  a  prince  capable  of  forfeiting  so  solemn 
a  pledge  ?  Were  it  even  supposed  that  he  intended  to  break 
his  word  with  the  catholics,  after  obtaining  such  aid  as  they 
could  render  him,  would  his  insincerity  be  less  flagrant  ? 1 

These  suspicions  were  much  aggravated  by  a  second  dis 
covery  that  took  place  soon  afterwards,  of  a  secret  Discovery  of 
treaty  between   the   earl   of  Glamorgan   and  the  Glamorgan's 
confederate  Irish  catholics,  not  merely  promising  treat>'- 
the  repeal  of  the  penal  laws,  but  the  establishment  of  their 
religion  in  far  the  greater  part  of  Ireland.2     The  marquis  of 
Ormond,   as   well   as    lord  Digby,   who  happened  to   be  at 
Dublin,  loudly  exclaimed  against  Glamorgan's  presumption 
in  concluding  such  a  treaty,  and  committed  him  to  prison  on 


confident  that,  in  making  peace  I  shall 
ever  show  my  constancy  in  adhering  to 
bishops  and  all  our  friends,  not  forgetting 
to  put  a  short  period  to  this  perpetual 
parliament.''  King's  Cabinet  Opened,  p. 
7.  "  It  being  presumption,  and  no  piety, 
so  to  trust  to  a  good  cause  as  not  to  use 
all  lawful  means  to  maintain  it,  I  have 
thought  of  one  means  more  to  furnish 
the«  with  for  my  assistance  than  hitherto 
thou  hast  had :  it  is,  that  I  give  thee 
power  to  promise  in  my  name,  to  whom 
thou  thinkest  most  fit,  that  I  will  take 
away  all  the  penal  laws  against  the  Ro 
man  catholics  in  England  as  soon  as  God 
shall  enable  me  to  do  it;  so  as  by  their 
means,  or  in  their  favours,  I  may  have 
so  powerful  assistance  as  may  deserve 
so  great  a  favour  and  enable  me  to  do  it. 
But  if  thou  ask  what  I  call  that  assist 
ance,  I  answer  that,  when  thou  knowest 
what  may  be  done  for  it,  it  will  be  easily 
seen  if  it  deserve  to  be  so  esteemed.  1 
need  not  tell  thee  what  secrecy  this  busi 
ness  requires;  yet  this  I  will  say,  that 
this  is  the  greatest  point  of  confidence  I 
can  express  to  thee ;  for  it  is  no  thanks 
to  me  to  trust  thee  in  anything  else  but 
in  this,  which  is  the  only  point  of  differ 
ence  in  opinion  betwixt  us  :  and  yet  I 
know  thou  wilt  make  as  good  a  bargain 
for  me,  even  in  this,  as  if  thou  wert  a 
protestant."  Id.  ibid.  "  As  to  my  call 
ing  those  at  London  a  parliament,  I 
shall  refer  thee  to  Digby  for  particular 


satisfaction  ;  this  in  general  —  if  there 
had  been  but  two,  besides  myself,  of  my 
opinion,  I  had  not  done  it;  and  the  ar 
gument  that  prevailed  with  me  was,  that 
the  calling  did  noways  acknowledge  them 
to  be  a  parliament,  upon  which  condition 
and  construction  I  did  it,  and  no  other 
wise,  and  accordingly  it  is  registered  in 
the  council-books,  with  the  council's 
unanimous  approbation."  Id.  p.  4.  The 
one  councillor  who  concurred  with  the 
king  was  secretary  Nicholas.  Supple 
ment  to  Evelyn's  Memoirs,  p.  90. 

1  The  queen  evidently  suspected  that 
he  might  be  brought  to  abandon  the 
catholics.  King's  Cabinet  Opened,  p.  30, 
31.  And,  if  fear  of  her  did  not  prevent 
him,  I  make  no  question  that  he  would 
have  done  so,  could  he  but  have  carried 
his  other  points. 

•2  Parl.  Hist.  428;  Somers  Tracts,  v. 
542.  It  appears  by  several  letters  of  the 
king,  published  among  those  taken  at 
Naseby,  that  Ormond  had  power  to  prom 
ise  the  Irish  a  repeal  of  the  penal  laws 
and  the  use  of  private  chapels,  as  well  a?, 
a  suspension  of  Poyning's  law.  King's 
Cabinet  Opened,  pp.  16, 19  ;  Itushw.  Abr. 
v.  589.  Glamorgan's  treaty  granted  them 
all  the  churches,  with  the  revenues  thei'e- 
of,  of  which  they  had  at  any  time  since 
October,  1641,  been  in  possession  :  that 
is,  the  reestablishmeut  of  their  religion  : 
they,  on  the  other  hand,  were  to  furnish 
a  very  large  army  to  the  king  in  England. 


188  DISCOVERY   OF  CHAP.  X. 

a  charge  of  treason.  He  produced  two  commissions  from 
the  king,  secretly  granted  without  any  seal  or  the  knowledge 
of  any  minister,  containing  the  fullest  powers  to  treat  with 
the  Irish,  and  promising  to  fulfil  any  conditions  into  which 
he  should  enter.  The  king,  informed  of"  this,  disavowed 
Glamorgan  ;  and  asserted  in  a  letter  to  the  parliament  that 
he  had  merely  a  commission  to  raise  men  for  his  service,  but 
no  power  to  treat  of  anything  else,  without  the  privity  of  the 
lord-lieutenant,  much  less  to  capitulate  anything  concerning 
religion  or  any  property  belonging  either  to  church  or  laity.1 
Glamorgan,  however,  was  soon  released  and  lost  no  portion 
of  the  king's  or  his  family's  favor. 

This  transaction  has  been  the  subject  of  much  historical 
controversy.  The  enemies  of  Charles,  both  in  his  own  and 
later  ages,  have  considered  it  as  a  proof  of  his  indifference 
at  least  to  the  protestant  religion,  and  of  his  readiness  to 
accept  the  assistance  of  Irish  rebels  on  any  conditions.  His 
advocates  for  a  long  time  denied  the  authenticity  of  Glamor 
gan's  commissions.  But  Dr.  Birch  demonstrated  that  they 
were  genuine  ;  and,  if  his  dissertation  could  have  left  any 
doubt,  later  evidence  might  be  adduced  in  confirmation.2 

1  Rushw.  Abr.  v.  582,  594.  This,  as  undo  the  king  forever,  that  no  repent- 
well  as  some  letters  taken  on  lord  Digby's  ance  shall  ever  obtain  a  pardon  of  this 
route  at  Sherborne  about  the  same  time,  act,  if  it  be  true,  from  his  parliaments." 
made  a  prodigious  impression.  "Many  Baillie.  ii.  185.  Jan.  20, 1646.  The  king's 
good  men  were  sorry  that  the  king's  disavowal  had  some  effect;  it  seems  as  if 
actions  agreed  no  better  with  his  words  ;  even  those  who  were  prejudiced  against 
that  he  openly  protested  before  God  with  him  could  hardly  believe  him  guilty  of 
horrid  imprecations  that  he  endeavored  such  an  apostasy  as  it  appeared  in  their 
nothing  so  much  as  the  preservation  of  eyes.  P.  175.  And,  in  fact,  though  the 
the  protestant  religion,  and  rooting  out  catholics  had  demanded  nothing  unrea- 
of  popery  ;  yet  in  the  mean  time,  under-  sonable  either  in  its  own  nature  or  ac- 
hand,  he  promised  to  the  Irish  rebels  an  cording  to  the  circumstances  wherein 
abrogation  of  the  laws  against  them,  they  stood,  it  threw  a  great  suspicion  on 
which  was  contrary  to  his  late  expressed  the  king's  attachment  to  his  own  faith, 
promises  in  these  words,  '  I  will  never  when  he  was  seen  to  abandon  altogether, 
abrogate  the  laws  against  the  papists.'  as  it  seemwl,  the  protestant  cause  in 
And  again  he  said,  '  I  abhor  to  think  of  Ireland,  while  he  was  struggling  so  tena- 
bringing  foreign  soldiers  into  the  king-  ciously  for  a  particular  form  of  it  in 
dom,'  and  yet  he  solicited  the  duke  of  Britain.  Nor  was  his  negotiation  less 
Lorrain,  the  French,  the  Danes,  and  the  impolitic  than  dishonorable.  Without 
very  Irish,  for  assistance."  May's  Bre-  depreciating  a  very  brave  and  injured 
viate  of  Hist,  of  Parliament  in  Maseres's  people,  it  may  be  said  with  certainty 
Tracts,  i.  61.  Charles  had  certainly  that  an  Irish  army  could  not  have  had 
never  scrupled  (I  do  not  say  that  he  the  remotest  chance  of  success  against 
ought  to  have  done  so)  to  make  applica-  Fairfax  and  Cromwell ;  the  courage  being 
tion  in  every  quarter  for  assistance  ;  and  equal  on  our  side,  the  skill  and  discipline 
began  in  1642  with  sending  a  col.  Coch-  incomparably  superior.  And  it  was  evi- 
ran  on  a  secret  mission  to  Denmark,  in  dent  that  Charles  could  never  reign  iu 
the  hope  of  obtaining  a  subsidiary  force  England  but  on  a  protestant  interest, 
from  that  kingdom.  There  was  at  least  "-  Birch's  Inquiry  into  the  Share  which 
no  danger  to  the  national  independence  King  Charles  I.  had  in  the  Transactions 
from  such  allies.  '%  We  fear  this  shall  of  the  Earl  of  Glamorgan,  1747-  Four 


CHA.  I.  — 1642-49.        GLAMORGAN'S   TREATY. 


189 


Hume,  in  a  very  artful  and  very  unfair  statement,  admitting 
the  authenticity  of  these  instruments,  endeavors  to  show 
that  they  were  never  intended  to  give  Glamorgan  any  power 
to  treat  without  Ormond's  approbation.  But  they  are  word 
ed  in  the  most  unconditional  manner,  without  any  reference 
to  Ormond.  No  common  reader  can  think  them  consistent 
with  the  king's  story.  I  do  not,  however,  impute  to  him  any 
intention  of  ratifying  the  terms  of  Glamorgan's  treaty.  His 
want  of  faith  was  not  to  the  protestant,  but  to  the  catholic. 
Upon  weighing  the  whole  of  the  evidence,  it  appears  to  me 
that  he  purposely  gave  Glamorgan,  a  sanguine  and  injudi 
cious  man,  whom  he  could  easily  disown,  so  ample  a  commis 
sion  as  might  remove  the  distrust  that  the  Irish  were  likely 
to  entertain  of  a  negotiation  wherein  Ormond  should  be 
concerned  ;  while,  by  a  certain  latitude  in  the  style  of  the 


letters  of  Charles  to  Glamorgan,  now  in. 
the  British  Museum  (Sloane  MSS.  4161), 
in  Birch's  handwriting,  but  of  which  he 
was  not  aware  at  the  time  of  that  publi 
cation,  decisively  show  the  king's  duplic 
ity.  In  the  first,  which  was  meant  to 
be  seen  by  Dighy,  dated  Feb.  3,  1646,  he 
blames  him  for  having  been  drawn  to 
consent  to  conditions  much  beyond  his 
instructions.  —  '•  If  you  had  advised  with 
my  lord-lieutenant,  as  you  promised  me, 
all  this  had  been  helped  ;  "  and  tells  him 
he  had  commanded  as  much  favor  to  be 
shown  him  as  might  possibly  stand  with 
his  service  and  safety.  On  Feb.  28  he 
writes,  by  a  private  hand,  sir  John 
Winter,  that  he  is  every  day  more  and 
more  confirmed  in  the  trust  that  he  had 
of  him.  In  a  third  letter,  dated  April  5, 
he  says,  in  a  cipher,  to  which  the  key  is 
given.  '•  you  cannot  be  but  confident  of 
my  making  good  all  instructions  and 
promises  to  you  and  nuncio."  The  fourth 
letter  is  dated  April  6,  and  is  in  these 
words  :  —  '•  Herbert,  as  I  doubt  not  but 
you  have  too  much  courage  to  be  dis 
mayed  or  discounted  at  the  usage  like 
you  have  had,  so  I  assure  you  that  my 
estimation  of  you  is  nothing  diminished 
by  it.  but  rather  begets  in  me  a  desire  of 
revenge  and  reparation  to  vis  both  (for 
in  this  I  hold  myself  equally  interested 
with  you),  whereupon,  not  doubting  of 
your  accustomed  care  and  industry  in 
iny  service,  I  assure  you  of  the  continu 
ance  of  my  favor  and  protection  to  you, 
and  that  in  deeds  more  than  in  words  I 
shall  show  myself  to  be  your  most  as 
sured  constant  friend.  C.  II." 

These  letters  have  lately  been  repub- 
lished  by  Dr.  Lingard,  Hist,  of  Eng.  x. 
note  B,  from  Warner's  Hist,  of  the  Civil 


War  in  Ireland.  The  cipher  may  be 
found  in  the  BiographiaBritannica,  under 
the  article  BALKS.  Dr.  L.  endeavors  to 
prove  that  Glamorgan  acted  all  along 
with  Ormond's  privity :  and  it  must  be 
owned  that  the  expression  in  the  king's 
last  letter  about  revenge  and  reparation, 
which  Dr.  L.  does  not  advert  to,  has  a 
very  odd  appearance. 

The  controversy  is,  I  suppose,  com 
pletely  at  an  end ;  so  that  it  is  hardly 
necessary  to  mention  a  letter  from  Gla 
morgan,  then  marquis  of  Worcester,  to 
Clarendon,  after  the  Restoration,  which 
has  every  internal  mark  of  credibility, 
and  displays  the  king's  unfairness.  Clar. 
State  Pap-  »•  201;  and  Lingard,  ubi 
supra.  It  is  remarkable  that  the  trans 
action  is  never  mentioned  in  the  History 
of  the  Rebellion.  The  noble  author  was, 
however,  convinced  of  the  genuineness  of 
Glamorgan's  commission,  as  appears  by 
a  letter  to  secretary  Nicholas  :  —  ''I  must 
tell  you,  I  care  not  how  little  I  say  in 
that  business  of  Ireland,  since  those 
strange  powers  and  instructions  given  to 
your  favorite  Glamorgan,  which  appear 
to  be  so  inexcusable  to  justice,  piety,  and 
prudence.  And  I  fear  there  is  very  much 
in  that  transaction  of  Ireland,  both  before 
and  since,  that  you  and  I  were  never 
thought  wise  enough  to  be  advised  with 
in.  Oh!  Mr.  Secretary,  those  stratagems 
have  given  me  more  sad  hours  than  all 
the  misfortunes  in  war  which  have  be 
fallen  the  king,  and  look  like  the  effects 
of  God's  anger  towards  us."  Id.  P.  237. 
See  also  a  note  of  Mr.  Laing,  Hist,  of 
Scotland,  iii.  557,  for  another  letter  of 
the  king  to  Glamorgan,  from  Newcastle, 
in  July,  1646,  not  less  explicit  than  the 
foregoing. 


190  CHARLES    GIVEN   UP   BY   THE   SCOTS.      CHAP.  X. 

instrument,  and  by  his  own  letters  to  the  lord-lieutenant 
about  Glamorgan's  errand,  he  left  it  open  to  assert,  in  case  of 
necessity,  that  it  was  never  intended  to  exclude  the  former's 
privity  and  sanction.  Charles  had  unhappily  long  been  in 
the  habit  of  perverting  his  natural  acuteness  to  the  mean 
subterfuges  of  equivocal  language. 

By  these  discoveries  of  the  king's  insincerity,  and  by 
what  seemed  his  infatuated  obstinacy  in  refusing  terms  of 
accommodation,  both  nations  became  more  and  more  alienated 
from  him ;  the  one  hardly  restrained  from  casting  him  off, 
the  other  ready  to  leave  him  to  his  fate.1  This  ill 
delivered  opinion  of  the  king  forms  one  apology  for  that 
UP  by  the  action  which  has  exposed  the  Scots  nation  to  so 

Scots.  ,  ,  i      •         -i    T  r    i    • 

much  reproach  —  their  delivery  ot  his  person  to 
the  English  parliament.  Perhaps,  if  we  place  ourselves  in 
their  situation,  it  will  not  appear  deserving  of  quite  such  in 
dignant  censure.  It  would  have  shown  more  generosity  to 
have  offered  the  king  an  alternative  of  retiring  to  Holland  ; 
and,  from  what  we  now  know,  he  probably  would  not  have 
neglected  the  opportunity.  But  the  consequence  might  have 
been  his  solemn  deposition  from  the  English  throne  ;  and, 
however  we  may  think  such  banishment  more  honorable 
than  the  acceptance  of  degrading  conditions,  the  Scots,  we 
should  remember,  saw  nothing  in  the  king's  taking  the  cove 
nant,  and  sweeping  away  prelatic  superstitions,  but  the  boun- 
den  duty  of  a  Christian  sovereign,  which  only  the  most 
perverse  self-will  induced  him  to  set  at  nought.2  They  had 

1  Bnrnet's  Mem.  of  Dukes  of  Ha  mil-  with  both  parties,  the  preshyterians  and 
ton.  284.  Baillie's  letters,  throughout  independents,  were  now  known  ;  and  all 
1646,  indicate  his  apprehension  of  the  sides  seem  to  have  been  ripe  for  deposing 
prevalent  spirit,  which  he  dreaded  as  him  :  245.  These  letters  are  a  curious 
implacable,  not  only  to  monarchy,  but  to  contrast  to  the  idle  fancies  of  a  speedy 
presbytery  and  the  Scots  nation.  "  The  and  triumphant  restoration,  which  C lax- 
leaders  of  the  people  seem  inclined  to  endon  himself,  as  well  as  others  of  less 
have  no  shadow  of  a  king,  to  have  liberty  judgment,  seem  to  have  entertained, 
for  all  religions,  a  lame  Erastian  presby-  "  "Though  he  should  swear  it."  says 
tery,  to  be  so  injurious  to  us  as  to  chase  Baillie,  '•  no  man  will  believe  that  he 
us  hence  with  the  sword."  — 148,  March  sticks  upon  episcopacy  for  any  con- 
31,1646.  "The  common  word  is,  that  science,"  ii.  205.  And  again  :"  It  is  pity 
they  will  have  the  king  prisoner.  Pos-  that  base  hypocrisy,  when  it  is  pellucid, 
sibly  they  may  grant  to  the  prince  to  be  shall  still  be  entertained.  No  oaths  did 
a  duke  of  Venice.  The  militia  must  be  ever  persuade  me  that  episcopacy  was 
absolutely,  for  all  time  to  come,  in  the  ever  adhered  to  on  any  conscience."  224,. 
power  of  the  parliament  alone.'' &c.  200.  This  looks  at,  first  like  mere  bigotry. 
On  the  king's  refusal  of  the  propositions  But,  when  we  remember  that  Charles  had 
sent  to  Newcastle,  the  Scots  took  great  abolished  episcopacy  in  Scotland,  and  was 
pains  to  prevent  a  vote  against  him  :  226.  ready  to  abolish  protestantism  in  Ireland, 
There  was  still,  however,  danger  of  this  :  Baillie's  prejudices  will  appear  less  un- 
236,  Oct.  13,  and  p.  243.  Ilis  intrigues  reasonable.  The  king's  private  letters  in 


CHA.  I.  — 1642-49.      CHARLES  GIVEN  UP  BY  THE  SCOTS.       191 


a  right  al-o  to  consider  the  interests  of  his  family,  which  the 
threatened  establishment  of  a  republic  in  England  would 
defeat.  To  carry  him  back  Avith  their  army  into  Scotland, 
besides  being  equally  ruinous  to  the  English  monarchy,  would 
have  exposed  their  nation  to  the  most  serious  dangers.  To 
undertake  his  defence  by  arms  against  England,  as  the  ardent 
royalists  desired,  and  doubtless  the  determined  republicans  no 
less,  would  have  been,  as  was  proved  afterwards,  a  mad  and 
culpable  renewal  of  the  miseries  of  both  kingdoms.1  lie 
had  voluntarily  come  to  their  camp  ;  no  faith  was  pledged  to 
him  ;  their  very  right  to  retain  his  person,  though  they  had 
argued  for  it  with  the  English  parliament,  seemed  .open  to 
much  doubt.  The  circumstance,  unquestionably,  which  has 
always  given  a  character  of  apparent  baseness  to  this  trans 
action,  is  the  payment  of  400. 0001.  made  to  them  so  nearly 
at  the  same  time  that  it  has  passed  for  the  price  of  the  king's 
person.  This  sum  was  part  of  a  larger  demand  on  the  score 
of  arrears  of  pay,  and  had  been  agreed  upon  long  before  we 
have  any  proof  or  reasonable  suspicion  of  a  stipulation  to 
deliver  up  the  king.2  That  the  parliament  would  never  have 
actually  paid  it  in  case  of  a  refusal  to  comply  with  this 


the  Clarendon  Papers  have  convinced  me 
of  his  conscientiousness  about  church 
government;  but  of  this  his  contempo 
raries  couid  not  be  aware. 

1  Hollis  maintains  that  the  violent 
party  were  very  desirous  that  the  Scots 
should  carry  the  king  with  them,  and 
that  nothing  could  have  been  more  in 
jurious  to  his  interests.  If  we  may  be 
lieve  Berkley,  who  is  much  confirmed  by 
Baillie,  the  presbyterians  had  secretly  en 
gaged  to  the  Scots  that  the  army  should 
be  disbanded,  and  the  king  brought  up 
to  London  with  honor  and  safety.  Me 
moirs  of  sir  J.  Berkley,  in  Maseres's 
Tracts,  i.  358.  Baillie,  ii.  257.  This  af 
fords  no  bad  justification  of  the  Scots  for 
delivering  him  up 

'•  It  is  very  like,"  says  Baillie,  "  if  he 
had  done  any  duty,  though  he  had  never 
taken  the  covenant,  but  permitted  it  to 
have  been  put  in  an  act  of  parliament  in 
both  kingdoms,  and  given  so  satisfactory 
an  answer  to  the  rest  of  the  propositions, 
as  easily  he  might,  and  sometimes  I  know 
he  was  willing,  certainly  Scotland  had 
been  for  him  as  one  man  ;  and  the  body 
of  England,  upon  many  grounds,  was 
upon  a  disposition  to  have  so  cordially 
embraced  him,  that  no  man,  for  his  life, 
durst  have  muttered  against  his  present 
restitution.  But  remaining  what  he  was 


in  all  his  maxims,  a  full  Canterburian, 
both  in  matters  of  religion  and  state,  he 
still  inclined  to  a  new  war;  and  for  that 
end  resolved  to  go  to  Scotland.  Some 
great  men  there  pressed  the  equity  of 
Scotland's  protecting  of  him  on  any  terms. 
This  untimeous  excess  of  friendship  has 
ruined  that  unhappy  prince:  for  the  bet 
ter  party  finding  the  conclusion  of  the 
king's  coming  to  Scotland,  and  thereby 
their  own  present  ruin,  and  the  ruin  of 
the  whole  cause,  the  making  the  nia- 
lignants  masters  of  church  and  state,  the 
drawing  the  whole  force  of  England  upon 
Scotland  for  their  perjurious  violation  of 
their  covenant,  they  resolved  by  all  means 
to  cross  that  design."  P.  253. 

M  The  votes  for  payment  of  the  sum  of 
400.000/.  to  the  Scots  are  011  Aug.  21,  27, 
and  Sept.  1  ;  though  it  was  not  fully 
agreed  between  the  two  nations  till  Dec. 
8.  Whitelock.  220.  229.  But  Wliitelock 
dates  the  commencement  of  the  under 
standing  as  to  the  delivery  of  the  king 
about  Dec.  24  (p.  231).  See  Commons' 
Journals;  Baillie,  ii.  24o.  253 :  Burnet's 
Memoirs  of  Hamilton.  2H3.  &c.;  Laing. 
iii.  3G2  ;  and  Mr.  Godwin's  History  of  the 
Commonwealth,  ii.  258.  a  work  in  which. 
great  attention  has  been  paid  to  the  or 
der  of  time. 


192  INDEPENDENTS   AND   REPUBLICANS.         CHAP.  X. 

requisition,  there  can  be,  I  presume,  no  kind  of  doubt  ;  and 
of  this  the  Scots  must  have  been  fully  aware.  But  \vhether 
there  were  any  such  secret  bargain  as  had  been  supposed,  or 
whether  they  would  have  delivered  him  up  if  there  had 
been  no  pecuniary  expectation  in  the  case,  is  what  I  cannot 
perceive  sufficient  grounds  to  pronounce  with  confidence, 
though  I  am  much  inclined  to  believe  the  affirmative  of  the 
latter  question.  And  it  is  deserving  of  particular  observa 
tion  that  the  party  in  the  house  of  commons  which  sought 
most  earnestly  to  obtain  possession  of  the  king's  person,  and 
carried  all  the  votes  for  payment  of  money  to  the  Scots,  was 
that  which  had  no  further  aim  than  an  accommodation  with 
him,  and  a  settlement  of  the  government  on  the  basis  of  its 
fundamental  laws,  though  doubtless  on  terms  very  derogatory 
to  his  prerogative ;  while  those  who  opposed  each  part  of 
the  negotiation  were  the  zealous  enemies  of  the  king,  and, 
in  some  instances  at  least,  of  the  monarchy.  The  Journals 
bear  witness  to  this.1 

Whatever  might  have  been  the  consequence  of  the  king's 
Growth  of  accepting  the  propositions  of  Newcastle,  his  chance 
the  inde-  of  restoration  upon  any  terms  was  now  in  all  ap- 

pendcnts  11  TT        i       i 

and  repub-  pearance  very  slender.  He  had  to  encounter 
Means.  enemies  more  dangerous  and  implacable  than  the 

presbyterians.  That  faction,  which  from  small  and  insensi 
ble  beginnings  had  acquired  continued  strength,  through  am 
bition  in  a  few7,  through  fanaticism  in  many,  through  a 
despair  in  some  of  reconciling  the  pretensions  of  royalty 
with  those  of  the  people,  was  now7  rapidly  ascending  to  su 
periority.  Though  still  weak  in  the  house  of  commons,  it 
had  spread  prodigiously  in  the  army,  especially  since  its 
new-modelling  at  the  time  of  the  self-denying  ordinance.2 
The  presbyterians  saw  with  dismay  the  growth  of  their  OWTII 
and  the  constitution's  enemies.  But  the  royalists,  who  had 

1  Journals.  Aug.  and  Sept.;    Godwin,  with  them,  and  those  the  most  resolute 
ubi  supra  ;  Baillie,  ii.  passim.  and  confident;  though  they  had  no  con- 

2  Baillie,  who,  in  Jan.  1644,  speaks  of  siderable  force  either  in  Essex's  or  Wal- 
the  independents  as  rather  troublesome  ler's  army,  nor  in  the  assembly  of  divines 
than   formidable,   and   even  says,    "  No  or  the   parliament  (ii.   5,  19,  20).     This 
man,  I  know,  in  either  of  the  houses  of  was  owing  in  a  great  degree  to  the  in- 
any  note,  is  for  them  "  (437);  and  that  fluence,  at  that  period,  of  Cromwell  over 
'•lord    Say's    power  and    reputation   is  Manchester.     "The  man, ;'  he  says,  "is 
none  at  all;  "'  admits,  in  a  few  months,  a  very  wise  and  active  head,  universally 
the  alarming  increase  of  independency  well    beloved,   as    religious    and    stout ; 
and    sectarianism   in   the  earl   of   Man-  being  a  known  independent,  and   most 
Chester's  army  :  more  than  two  parts  in  of  the  soldiers  who  love  new  ways  put 
three  of  the  officers  and  soldiers  being  themselves  under  his  command  "  (60). 


CHA.  I.  — 1642-49. 


TOLERATION. 


193 


less  to  fear  from  confusion  than  from  any  settlement  that  the 
commons  would  be  brought  to  make,  rejoiced  in  the  increas 
ing  disunion,  and  fondly  believed,  like  their  master,  that  one 
or  other  party  must  seek  assistance  at  their  hands.1 

The  independent  party  comprehended,  besides  the  mem 
bers  of  that   religious   denomination,2  a   countless   brood  of 
fanatical  sectaries,  nursed  in  the  lap  of  presbyterianism,  and 
fed  with  the  stimulating  aliment  she  furnished,  till       osition 
their  intoxicated  fancies  could  neither  be  restrained  to  the  pres- 
within   the    limits   of  her  creed   nor  those   of  her  ^JS.8*^' 
discipline.3    The  presbyterian  zealots  were  system 
atically  intolerant.      A  common  cause   made  toleration  the 
doctrine  of  the  sectaries.     About  the  be^innin^  of 

,.  Toleration. 

the  war  it  had  been  deemed  expedient  to  call  to 
gether  an  assembly  of  divines,  nominated  by  the  parliament, 
and  consisting  not  only  of  clergymen,  but,  according  to  the 
presbyterian  usage,  of  lay  members,  peers  as  well  as  common 
ers,  by  whose  advice  a  general  reformation  of  the  church  was 
to  be  planned.4  These  were  chiefly  presbyterian,  though  a 


l  The  independent  party,  or  at  least 
some  of  its  most  eminent  members,  as 
lord  Say  and  Mr.  St.  John,  were  in  a  se 
cret  correspondence  with  Oxford,  through 
the  medium  of  lord  Saville,  in  the  spring 
of  1645,  if  we  believe  Hollis,  who  asserts 
that  he  had  seen  their  letters,  asking 
offices  for  themselves.  Mem.  of  Hollis. 
sect.  43.  Uaillie  refers  this  to  an  earlier 
period,  the  beginning  of  1644  (i.  427); 
and  I  conceive  that  Hollis  has  been  in 
correct  as  to  the  date.  The  king,  how 
ever,  was  certainly  playing  a  game  with 
them  in  the  beginning  of  1646,  as  well  as 
with  the  presby  terians,  so  as  to  give  both 
parties  an  opinion  of  his  insincerity. 
Clarendon  State  Papers,  214 ;  and  see 
two  remarkable  letters  written  by  his 
order  to  sir  Henry  Vane,  226.  urging  a 
union,  in  order  to  overthrow  the  presby 
terian  government. 

-  The  principles  of  the  independents 
are  set  forth  candidly,  and  even  favor 
ably,  by  Collier,  829  ;  as  well  as  by  Neal, 
ii.  98.  For  those  who  are  not  much  ac 
quainted  with  ecclesiastical  distinctions, 
it  may  be  useful  to  mention  the  two 
essential  characteristics  of  this  sect,  by 
which  they  differed  from  the  presbyte- 
rians.  The  first  was,  that  all  churches  or 
separate  congregations  were  absolutely 
independent  of  each  other  as  to  jurisdic 
tion  or  discipline  ;  whence  they  rejected 
all  synods  and  representative  assemblies 
as  possessing  authority  ;  though  they 
VOL.  II.  13 


generally  admitted,  to  a  very  limited 
degree,  the  alliance  of  churches  for  mut 
ual  counsel  and  support.  Their  second 
characteristic  was  the  denial  of  spiritual 
powers  communicated  in  ordination  by 
apostolical  succession  ;  deeming  the  call 
of  a  congregation  a  sufficient  warrant  for 
the  exercise  of  the  ministry.  See  Orme's 
Life  of  Owen  for  a  clear  view  and  able 
defence  of  the  principles  maintained  by 
this  party.  I  must  add  that  Neal  seems 
to  have  proved  that  the  independents,  as 
a  body,  were  not  systematically  adverse 
to  monarchy. 

:i  Edwards's  Gangrsena,  a  noted  book  in 
that  age,  enumerates  one  hundred  and 
seventy-six  heresies,  which  however  are 
reduced  by  him  to  sixteen  heads  ;  and 
these  seem  capable  of  further  consolida 
tion.  Neal,  249.  The  house  ordered  a 
general  fast,  Feb.  1647,  to  beseech  God 
to  stop  the  growth  of  heresy  and  blas 
phemy  :  Whitelock,  236  :  a  presbyterian 
artifice  to  alarm  the  nation. 

*  Pad.  Hist.  ii.  1479.  They  did  not 
meet  till  July  1,  1643;  Rush.  Abr.  v. 
123;  Neal,  42  ;  Collier,  823.  Though  this 
assembly  showed  abundance  of  bigotry 
and  narrowness,  they  were  by  no  means 
so  contemptible  as  Clarendon  represents 
them,  ii.  423  ;  and  perhaps  equal  in 
learning,  good  sense,  and  other  merits, 
to  any  lower  house  of  convocation  that 
ever  made  a  figure  in  England. 


194 


riiESIJ YTERIAN   ORDINANCE. 


CHAP.  X. 


small  minority  of  independents,  and  a  few  moderate  episcopa 
lians,  headed  by  Selden,1  gave  them  much  trouble.  The  gen 
eral  imposition  of  the  covenant,  and  the  substitution  of  the 
directory  for  the  common  prayer  (which  was  forbidden  to  be 
used  even  in  any  private  family,  by  an  ordinance  of  August, 
1654),  seemed  to  assure  the  triumph  of  presbyterianism, 
which  became  complete,  in  point  of  law,  by  an  ordinance  of 
February  1646,  establishing  for  three  years  the  Scots'  model 
of  classes,  synods,  and  general  assemblies  throughout  Eng 
land.2  But  in  this  very  ordinance  there  was  a  reservation 
which  wounded  the  spiritual  arrogance  of  that  party.  Their 
favorite  tenet  had  always  been  the  independency  of  the 
church.  They  had  rejected,  with  as  much  abhorrence  as 
the  catholics  themselves,  the  royal  supremacy,  so  far  as  it 
controlled  the  exercise  of  spiritual  discipline.  But  the  house 
of  commons  were  inclined  to  part  with  no  portion  of  that  pre 
rogative  which  they  had  wrested  from  the  crown.  Besides 
the  independents,  who  were  still  weak,  a  party  called  Eras- 
tians,3  and  chiefly  composed  of  the  common  lawyers,  under 


1  Wliitelock.    71 ;   Neal,   103.     Selden, 
who  owed  no  gratitude  to  the  episcopal 
church,  was  from  the  beginning  of  its 
dangers  a  steady  and  active  friend,  dis 
playing,  whatever  may   have   been  said 
of   his   timidity,  full   as   much   courage 
as  co'uld  reasonably  be  expected  from  a 
studious  man  advanced  in  years.    Baillie, 
in  1641,  calls  him  '•  the  avowed  proctor 
of  the  bishops,"  i.  245  :  and.  when  pro 
voked  by  his  Erastian  opposition  in  1646, 
presumes  to  talk  of  his  ••  insolent  absur 
dity,-  ii.  96.     Selden  sat  in  the  assembly 
of  divines ;  and  by  his  great  knowledge 
of  the  ancient  languages  and  of  ecclesi 
astical    antiquities,   as   well    as    by   his 
sound  logic  and  calm  clear  judgment,  ob 
tained  an  undeniable  superiority,  which 
he  took  no  pains  to  conceal. 

2  Scobell;   Hush.  Abr.  v.  576;     Parl. 
Hist.  iii.  444 ;  Neal,  199.     The  latter  says 
this  did  not  pass  the  lords  till  June  6. 
But  this  is  not  so.  Whitelock  very  rightly 
opposed  the  prohibition  of  the  use  of  tlie 
common  prayer,  and  of  the  silencing  epis 
copal  ministers,  as  contrary  to  the  prin 
ciple  of  liberty  of  conscience  avowed  by 
the  parliament,  and  like  what  had  been 
complained  of  in  the  bishops:  226,  239, 
281.     But,  in   Sept.  1647,   it   was   voted 
that  the  indulgence   in  favor  of  tender 
consciences  should  not  extend  to  tolerate 
the  common  prayer.     Id.  274. 

s  The  Erastians  were  named  from  Eras- 
tus,  a  German  physician  in  the  sixteenth 
century.  The  denomination  is  often  used 


in  the  present  age  ignorautly,  and  there 
fore  indefinitely ;  but  I  apprehend  that 
the  fundamental  principle  of  his  followers 
was  this  :  —  That,  in  a  commonwealth 
where  the  magistrate  professes  Christian 
ity,  it  is  not  convenient  that  offences 
against  religion  and  morality  should  be 
punished  by  the  censures  of  the  church, 
especially  by  excommunication.  Prob 
ably  he  may  have  gone  farther,  as  Selden 
seems  to  have  done  (Neal,  194).  and  de 
nied  the  right  of  exclusion  from  church 
communion,  even  without  reference  to 
the  temporal  power  ;  but  the  limited  prop 
osition  was  of  course  sufficient  to  raise 
the  practical  controversy.  The  Helvetic 
divines,  Gualter  and  Bullinger.  strongly 
concurred  in  this  with  Erastus  :  "  Con- 
tendimus  disciplinam  esse  debere  in  ec- 
clesia,  sed  satis  esse,  si  ea  administretur 
a  magistratu."  Erastus,  de  Excommn- 
nicatione,  p.  350  ;  and  a  still  stronger  pas 
sage  in  p.  379.  And  it  is  said  that  arch 
bishop  Whitgift  caused  Erastus's  book  to 
be  printed  at  his  own  expense.  See  one 
of  Warburton's  notes  on  Neal.  Calvin, 
and  the  whole  of  his  school,  held,  as  is 
well  known,  a  very  opposite  tenet.  See 
Erasti  Theses  de  Excommunicatioiie.  4to. 
1579. 

The  ecclesiastical  constitution  of  Eng 
land  is  nearly  Erastian  in  theory,  and 
almost  wholly  so  in  practice.  Every  sen 
tence  of  the  spiritual  judge  is  liable  to 
be  reversed  by  a  civil  tribunal,  the  court 
of  delegates,  by  virtue  of  the  king's  su- 


CHA.  I.  — 1042-49.  STRENGTH  OF  PRESBYTERIAN  PARTY.  195 

the  guidance  of  Selden,  the  sworn  foe  of  every  ecclesiastical 
usurpation,  withstood  the  assembly's  pretensions  with  success. 
They  negatived  a  declaration  of  the  divine  right  of  presby- 
terian  government.  They  voted  a  petition  from  the  assembly, 
complaining  of  a  recent  ordinance  as  an  encroachment  on 
spiritual  jurisdiction,  to  be  a  breach  of  privilege.  The  pres- 
byterian  tribunals  were  made  subject  to  the  appellant  control 
of  parliament,  as  those  of  the  Anglican  church  had  been  to 
that  of  the  crown.  The  cases  wherein  spiritual  censures 
could  be  pronounced,  or  the  sacrament  denied,  instead  of 
being  left  to  the  clergy,  were  defined  by  law.1  Whether 
from  dissatisfaction  on  this  account,  or  some  other  reason, 
the  presbyterian  discipline  was  never  carried  into  effect 
except  to  a  certain  extent  in  London  and  in  Lancashire. 
But  the  beneficed  clergy  throughout  England,  till  the  return 
of  Charles  II.,  were  chiefly,  though  not  entirely,  of  that  de 
nomination.2 

This  party  was  still  so  far  predominant,  having  the  strong 
support  of   the   city   of  London   and  its   corporation,3  with 


premacy  over  all  causes.  And,  practi 
cally,  what  is  culled  church  discipline,  or 
the  censures  of  ecclesiastical  governors 
for  offences,  has  gone  so  much  into  dis 
use,  and  what  remains  is  so  contemptible, 
that  I  believe  no  one,  except  those  who 
derive  a  little  profit  from  it,  would  regret 
its  abolition. 

'•  The  most  part  of  the  house  of  com 
mons.''  says  Baillie,  ii.  149.  "  especially 
the  lawyers,  whereof  there  are  many,  and 
divers  of  them  very  able  men,  are  either 
half  or  whole  Erastians,  believing  no 
church  government  to  be  of  divine  right, 
but  all  to  be  a  human  constitution,  de 
pending  on  the  will  of  the  magistrate." 
"  The  pope  and  king,"  he  says  in  another 
place,  196, ''  were  never  more  earnest  for 
the  headship  of  the  church  than  the  plu 
rality  of  this  parliament."  See  also  p. 
183;  and  Whitelock,  169. 

i  Parl.  Hist.  459.  et  alibi:  Tlushw.  Abr. 
v.  578.  et  alibi :  Whitelock,  165,  169.  173, 
176.  et  post ;  Baillie's  Letters,  passim  • 
Neal,  23.  &c.  194,  et  post;  Collier,  841. 
The  assembly  attempted  to  sustain  their 
own  cause  by  counter  votes ;  and,  the 
minority  of  independents  and  Erastians 
having  withdrawn,  it  was  carried,  with 
the  single  dissent  of  Lightfoot.  that  Christ 
had  established  a  government  in  his 
church  independent  of  the  civil  magis 
trate.  Neal,  223. 

•-  Neal.  228.  Warburton  says,  in  his 
note  on  this  passage,  that  '•  the  presby 


terian  was  to  all  intents  anrl  purposes  the 
established  religion  during  the  time  of 
the  commonwealth."  But,  as  coercive 
discipline  and  synodical  government  are 
no  small  intents  and  purposes  of  that 
religion,  this  assertion  requires  to  be 
modified,  as  it  has  been  in  my  text.  Be 
sides  which  there  were  many  ministers  of 
the  independent  sect  in  benefices,  some 
of  whom  probably  had  never  received  or 
dination.  "Both  baptists  and  indepen 
dents,"  says  a  very  well-informed  writer 
of  the  latter  denomination.  "  were  in  the 
practice  of  accepting  the  livings,  that  is, 
the  temporalities  of  the  church.  Thev 
did  not,  however,  view  themselves  as 
parish  ministers  and  bound  to  administer 
all  the  ordinances  of  religion  to  the  parish 
population.  They  occupied  the  parochial 
edifices  and  received  a  portion  of  the 
tithes  for  their  maintenance  ;  but  in  all 
other  respects  acted  according  to  their 
own  principles."  Orme's  Life  of  Owen, 
136.  This  he  thinks  would  have  produced 
very  serious  evils  if  not  happily  checked 
by  the  Restoration.  "  During  the  com 
monwealth,"  he  observes  afterwards,  245, 
"  no  system  of  church  government  can 
be  considered  as  having  been  properly  or 
fully  established.  The  presbyterians,  if 
any,  enjoyed  this  distinction." 

3  The  city  began  to  petition  for  the 
establishment  of  presbytery,  and  against 
toleration  of  sectaries,  early  in  1646 ;  and 
not  long  after  came  to  assume  what 


196 


STRENGTH   OF   PRESBYTERIAN   PARTY.      CHAP.  X. 


almost  all  the  peers  who  remained  in  their  house,  that  the 
independents  and  other  sectaries  neither  opposed  this  ordi 
nance  for  its  temporary  establishment,  nor  sought  anything 
further  than  a  toleration  for  their  own  worship.  The  ques 
tion,  as  Neal  well  observes,  was  not  between  presbytery  and 
independency,  but  between  presbytery  with  a  toleration  and 
without  one.1  Not  merely  from  their  own  exclusive  bigotry, 
but  from  a  political  alarm  by  no  means  ungrounded,  the  pres- 
byterians  stood  firmly  against  all  liberty  of  conscience.  But 
in  this  again  they  could  not  influence  the  house  of  commons 
to  suppress  the  sectaries,  though  no  open  declaration  in  favor 


seemed  to  the  commons  too  dictatorial  a 
tone.  This  gave  much  offence,  and  con 
tributed  to  drive  some  members  into  the 
opposite  faction.  Neal,  193,  221,  241 ; 
Whitelock,  207,  240. 

i  Vol.  ii.  268.  See  also  207  and  other 
places.  This  is  a  remark  that  requires 
attention ;  many  are  apt  to  misunder 
stand  the  question.  "For  this  point 
(toleration)  both  they  and  we  contend," 
saysBaillie,  ''  tanquam  pro  aris  et  focis," 
ii.  175.  "  Not  only  they  praise  your  mag 
istrate  "  (writing  to  a  Mr.  Spang  in  Hol 
land),  kl  who  for  policy  gives  some  secret 
tolerance  to  divers  religions,  wherein,  as 
I  conceive,  your  divines  preach  against 
them  as  great  sinners,  but  avow  that,  by 
God's  command,  the  magistrate  is  dis 
charged  to  put  the  least  discourtesy  on 
any  man,  Jew,  Turk,  Papist,  Socinian,  or 
whatever,  for  his  religion  :"  18.  See  also 
61.  and  many  other  passages.  '•  The 
army  "  (says  Hugh  Peters,  in  a  tract  en 
titled  A  Word  for  the  Army,  and  Two 
Words  to  the  People.  1647)  kk  never  hin 
dered  the  state  from  a  state  religion, 
having  only  wished  to  enjoy  now  what 
the  puritans  begged  under  the  prelates; 
when  we  desire  more,  blame  us,  and 
shame  us."  In  another,  entitled  Vox 
Militaris,  the  author  says,  >'  We  did 
never  engage  against  this  platform,  nor 
for  that  platform,  nor  ever  will,  except 
better  informed  ;  and,  therefore,  if  the 
state  establisheth  presbytery,  we  shall 
never  oppose  it." 

The  question  of  toleration,  in  its  most 
important  shape,  was  brought  at  this 
time  before  parliament,  on  occasion  of 
one  Paul  Best  who  had  written  against 
the  doctrine  of  the  trinity.  According  to 
the  common  law,  heretics,  on  being  ad 
judged  by  the  spiritual  court,  were  de 
livered  over  to  be  burned  under  the  writ 
de  hasretico  comburendo.  This  punish 
ment  had  been  inflicted  five  times  under 
Elizabeth  ;  on  Wielmacker  and  Ter  Wort, 
two  Dutch  anabaptists,  who.  like  many 
of  that  sect,  entertained  Arian  tenets, 


and  were  burned  in  Smithfield  in  1575; 
on  Matthew  Hammond  in  1579,  Thomas 
Lewis  in  1583.  and  Francis  Ket  in  1588; 
all  burned  by  Scambler,  bishop  of  Nor 
wich.  It  was  also  inflicted  on  Bartholo 
mew  Legat  and  Edward  Wightman.  under 
James,  in  1614  ;  the  first  burned  by  King, 
bishop  of  London,  the  second  by  Neyle 
of  Lichfield.  A  third,  by  birth  a  Span 
iard,  incurred  the  same  penalty  ;  but  the 
compassion  of  the  people  showed  itself  so 
strongly  at  Legat's  execution,  that  James 
thought  it  expedient  not  to  carry  the  sen 
tence  into  effect.  Such  is  the  venomous 
and  demoralizing  spirit  of  bigotry,  that 
Fuller,  a  writer  remarkable  for  good  na 
ture  and  gentleness,  expresses  his  indig 
nation  at  the  pity  which  was  manifested 
by  the  spectators  of  Legat's  sufferings. 
Church  Hist,  part  ii.  p.  62.  In  the  pres 
ent  case  of  Paul  Best,  the  old  sentence  of 
fire  was  not  suggested  by  any  one  ;  but 
an  ordinance  was  brought  in,  Jan.  1646, 
to  punish  him  with  death.  Whitelock, 
190.  Best  made,  at  length,  such  an  ex 
planation  as  was  accepted  ;  Neal,  214 ;  but 
an  ordinance  to  suppress  blasphemies  and 
heresies  as  capital  offences  was  brought  in. 
Commons'  Journals,  April,  1646.  The 
independents  gaining  strength,  this  was 
long  delayed  ;  but  the  ordinance  passed 
both  houses,  May  2, 1648.  Id.  303.  Neal, 
338,  justly  observes  that  it  shows  the  gov 
erning  presbyterians  would  have  made  a 
terrible  use  of  their  power,  had  they  been 
supported  by  the  sword  of  the  civil  magis 
trate.  The  denial  of  the  trinity,  incarna 
tion,  atonement,  or  inspiration  of  any 
book  of  the  Old  or  New  Testament,  was 
made  felony.  Lesser  offences,  such  as 
anabaptism,  or  denying  the  lawfulness 
of  presbyterian  government,  were  pun 
ishable  by  imprisonment  till  the  party 
should  recant.  It  was  much  opposed, 
especially  by  Whitelock.  The  writ  de 
haeretico  comburendo,  as  is  well  known, 
was  taken  away  by  act  of  parliament  iu 
1677. 


CHA.  I.  — 1642-49.     CHARLES'S   ILL-GROUNDED   HOPES.        197 

of  indulgence  was  as  yet  made.  It  is  still  the  boast  of  the 
independents  that  they  first  brought  forward  the  great  prin 
ciples  of  religious  toleration  (I  mean  as  distinguished  from 
maxims  of  political  expediency)  which  had  been  confined  to 
a  few  philosophical  minds  —  to  sir  Thomas  More,  in  those 
days  of  his  better  judgment  when  he  planned  his  republic  of 
Utopia,  to  Thuanus,  or  L'Hospital.  Such  principles  are, 
indeed,  naturally  congenial  to  the  persecuted  ;  and  it  is  by 
the  alternate  oppression  of  so  many  different  sects  that  they 
have  now  obtained  their  universal  reception.  But  the  inde 
pendents  also  assert  that  they  first  maintained  them  while  in 
power  —  a  far  higher  praise,  which,  however,  can  only  be 
allowed  them  by  comparison.  Without  invidiously  glancing 
at  their  early  conduct  in  New  England,1  it  must  be  admit 
ted  that  the  continuance  of  the  penal  laws  against  catho 
lics,  the  prohibition  of  the  episcopalian  worship,  and  the 
punishment  of  one  or  two  anti-trinitarians  under  Cromwell, 
are  proofs  that  the  tolerant  principle  had  not  yet  acquired 
perfect  vigor.  If  the  independent  sectaries  were  its  earliest 
advocates,  it  was  the  Anglican  writers,  the  school  of  Chil- 
lingworth,  Hales,  Taylor,  Locke,  and  Hoadley,  that  rendered 
it  victorious.2 

The  king,  as  I  have  said,  and  his  party  cherished  too  san 
guine  hopes  from  the  disunion  of  their  opponents.3     Though 

i  "  Tn  all  New  England,  no  liberty  of  without  imbibing  its  spirit  in  the  fullest 
living  fora presbyterian.  Whoever  there,  measure.  The  great  work  of  Jeremy 
were  they  angels  for  life  and  doctrine,  Taylor,  on  the  Liberty  of  Prophesying, 
will  essay  to  set  up  a  different  way  from  was  published  in  1647  ;  and,  if  we  except 
them  [the  independents],  shall  be  sure  of  a  few  concessions  to  the  temper  of  the 
present  banishment."  Baillie,  ii.  4 ;  also  tiuies,  which  are  not  reconcilable  to  its 
17.  I  am  surprised  to  find  a  late  writer  general  principles,  has  left  little  for  those 
of  that  country  (Dwight's  Travels  in  New  who  followed  him.  Mr.  Orme  admits 
England)  attempt  to  extenuate  at  least  that  the  remonstrants  of  Holland  main- 
the  intolerance  of  the  independents  tow-  tained  the  principles  of  toleration  very 
ards  the  quakers  who  came  to  settle  there ;  early  (p.  50);  but  refers  to  a  tract  by 
and  which,  we  see,  extended  also  to  the  Leonard  Busher.  an  independent,  in  1614, 
presbyterians.  But  Mr.  Orme,  with  more  as  "  containing  the  most  enlightened  and 
judgment,  observes  that  the  New  Eng-  scriptural  views  of  religious  liberty  :;  (p. 
land  congregations  did  not  sufficiently  99).  He  quotes  other  writings  of  the  same 
adhere  to  the  principle  of  independency,  sect  under  Charles  I. 
and  acted  too  much  as  a  body  ;  to  which  3  Several  proofs  of  this  occur  in  the 
he  ascribes  their  persecution  of  the  quak-  Clarendon  State  Papers.  A  letter,  in  par- 
era  and  others.  Life  of  Owen.  p.  835.  ticular,  from  Colepepper  to  Digby,  in 
It  is  certain  that  the  congregational  Sept.  1645,  is  so  extravagantly  sanguine, 
scheme  leads  to  toleration,  as  the  na-  considering  the  posture  of  the  king's  af- 
tional  church  scheme  is  adverse  to  it,  for  fairs  at  that  time,  that,  if  it  was  perfectly 
manifold  reasons  which  the  reader  will  sincere,  Colepepper  must  have  been  a  man 
discover.  of  less  ability  than  has  generally  been 

-  Though  the  writings  of  Chillingworth  supposed.    Vol.  ii.  p.  188.     Neal  has  some 

and  Hales  are  not  directly  in  behalf  of  sensible  remarks  on  the  king's  mistake  in 

toleration,    no    one    could    relish    them  supposing  that  any  party  which  he  did 


198  CONCLUSION   OF   THE   WAR.  CHAP.  X. 

warned  of  it  by  the  parliamentary  commissioners  at  Oxbridge, 
though,  in  fact,  it  was  quite  notorious  and  undisguised,  they 
seem  never  to  have  comprehended  that  many  active  spirits 
looked  to  the  entire  subversion  of  the  monarchy.  The  king 
in  particular  was  haunted  by  a  prejudice,  natural  to  his  ob 
stinate  and  undiscerning  mind,  that  he  was  necessary  to  the 
settlement  of  the  nation  ;  so  that,  if  he  remained  firm,  the 
whole  parliament  and  army  must  be  at  his  feet.  Yet  during 
the  negotiations  at  Newcastle  there  was  daily  an  imminent 
danger  that  the  majority  of  parliament,  irritated  by  his 
delays,  would  come  to  some  vote  excluding  him  from  the 
throne.  The  Scots  Presbyterians,  whatever  we  may  think 
of  their  behavior,  were  sincerely  attached,  if  not  by  loyal 
affection,  yet  by  national  pride,  to  the  blood  of  their  ancient 
kings.  They  thought  and  spoke  of  Charles  as  of  a  head 
strong  child,  to  be  restrained  and  chastised,  but  never  cast 
off.1  But  in  England  he  had  absolutely  no  friends  among 
the  prevailing  party  ;  many  there  were  who  thought  mon 
archy  best  for  the  nation,  but  none  who  cared  for  the  king. 
This  schism,  nevertheless,  between  the  parliament  and  the 
army  was  at  least  in  appearance  very  desirable  for  Charles, 
and  seemed  to  afford  him  an  opportunity  which  a  discreet 
prince  might  improve  to  great  advantage,  though  it  unfortu 
nately  deluded  him  with  chimerical  expectations.2  At  the 

not  join  must  in  the  end  be  ruined  :  p.         Baillie's  judgment  of  men  was  not  more 

268.     lie  had  not  lost  this  strange  conn-  conspicuous  than  his  moderation.  ''Vane 

deuce  after  his  very  life  had  become  des-  and  Cromwell  are  of  horrible  hot  fancies 

perate  ;  and  told  Sir  John  Bowring,  when  to  put  all  in  coufusion,  but  not  of  any 

he  advised  him  not  to  spin  out  the  time  deep  reach.     St.  John  and  Pierpoint  are 

at  the  treaty  of  Newport,  that  'lauy  in-  more  stayed,  but  not  great  heads."    P. 

terests  would    be   glad  to  come  in  with  258.     The  drift  of  all  his  letters  is,  that 

him."     See  Bowring's  Memoirs  in  Hali-  every  man  who  resisted  the  jus  divinmn 

fax's  Miscellanies,  132.  of  presbytery  was  knave  or  fool,  if  not 

i  Baillie's  letters  are  full  of  this  feel-  both.     They  are  however  eminently  ser- 

ing,  and  must  be  reckoned  fair  evidence,  viceable  as  historical  documents, 
since  no  man  could  be  more  bigoted  to        2  ''Now  for  my  own   particular   reso- 

presbytery,  or  more   bitter  against   the  lutiou,"  he   says   in  a   letter   to   Digby, 

royali.st  party.     I  have  somewhere  seen  March  26,   1646.  "it  is  this.      I  am  eu- 

Baiilie  praised  for  his  mildness.     His  let-  deavouring  to  get  to  London,  so  that  the 

ters  give  no  proof  of  it.     Take  the  follow-  conditions  may  be  such  as  a  gentleman 

ing  specimens  :  —  "  Mr.  Maxwell  of  Ross  may  own,  and  that   the  rebels  may  ac- 

has  printed  at  Oxford  so  desperately  mali-  knowledge  me  king  ;   being  not  without 

cious  an  invective  against  our  assemblies  hope  that  I  shall  be  able  so  to  draw  either 

and  presbyteries,  that,  however  I  could  the  presbyterians  or  independents  to  side 

hardly  consent  to  the  hanging  of  Canter-  with  me  for  extirpating   the  one  or  the 

bury  or  of  any  Jesuit,  yet  I   could  give  other,  that  I  shall  be  really  king  again." 

my  sentence  freely  against  that  unhappy  Carte's  Ormond,  iii.  452;  quoted  by  Mr. 

man's  life."  —  ii.  99.     "God  has  struck  Brodie,  to  whom  I  am  indebted  for  the 

Colemaii  with  death  ;  he  fell  in  an  ague,  passage.     I  have  mentioned  already  his 

and,  after   three  or  four  days,  expired,  overture  about    this    time  to  sir   lieiiry 

It  is  not  good  to  stand  in  Christ's  way."  Vane  through  Ashburuham. 
P.  199. 


CHA.  I. —  1642-49.       INTRIGUES   OF   THE  ARMY. 


199 


conclusion  of  the  war,  which  the  useless  obstinacy  of  the 
royalists  had  protracted  till  the  beginning  of  1647,1  the  com 
mons  began  to  take  measures  for  breaking  the  force  of  their 
remaining  enemy.  They  resolved  to  disband  a  part  of  the 
army,  and  to  send  the  rest  into  Ireland.2  They  formed 
schemes  for  getting  rid  of  Cromwell,  and  even  made  some 
demur  about  continuing  Fairfax  in  command.8  But  in  all 
measures  that  exact  promptitude  and  energy,  treachery  and 
timidity  are  apt  to  enfeeble  the  resolutions  of  a  popular 
assemblv.  Their  demonstrations  of  enmity  were  T 

J  -          .  ,  iii  Intrigues 

however  so  alarming  to  the  army,  who  knew  them-  of  the  army 
selves  disliked  by  the  people,  and  dependent  for  J?^  the 
their    pay    on    the   parliament  ;  that    as    early   as 
April,  1047,  an  overture  was  secretly  made  to  the  king,  that 
they  would  replace  him  in  his  power  and  dignity.     He  cau 
tiously  answered  that  he  would  not  involve  the  kingdom  in  a 
fresh  war,  but   should  ever  feel  the  strongest   sense  of  this 
offer  from  the  army.4     Whether  they  were  discontented  at 


1  Clarendon,   followed   by   Hume    and 
several  others,  appears  to  say  that  Rag 
lan  castle  in  Monmouthshire,  defended  by 
the  marquis  of  Worcester,  was  the  last 
that   surrendered ;    namely,   in   August, 

1646.  I   use   the   expression   nppears  to 
smj.  because  the  last  edition,  which  exhib 
its  his  real  text,  shows  that  he  paid  this 
compliment  to  Pendennis  castle  in  Corn 
wall,   and    that   his   original    editors   (I 
suppose  to  do  honor  to  a  noble  family) 
foisted  in  the  name  of  Raglan.     It  is  true 
however   of  neither.     The  North  Welsh 
castles    held    out    considerably   longer  ; 
that  of  Harlech  was  not  taken  till  April, 

1647,  which    put    an  end    to   the  war. 
Whiteiock. 

Clarendon,  still  more  unyielding  than 
his  master,  extols  the  long  resistance  of 
his  party,  and  -says  that  those  who  sur 
rendered  at  the  first  summons  obtained 
no  better  terms  than  they  who  made  the 
stoutest  defence  ;  as  if  that  were  a  suffi 
cient  justification  for  prolonging  a  civil 
war.  In  fact,  however,  they  did  the  king 
some  harm  ;  inasmuch  as  they  impeded 
the  efforts  made  in  parliament  to  disband 
the  army.  Several  votes  of  the  commons 
show  this  ;  see  the  Journals  of  12th  May 
and  31st  July,  1646. 

2  The  resolution  to  disband    Fairfax's 
regiment    next  Tuesday   at    Chelmsford 
passed  16th  May,  1647,  by  136  to  115; 
Algernon   Sidney   being  a   teller  of  the 
noes.  Commons' Journals.   In  these  votes 
the  house,  that  is,  the  presby  terian  major 
ity,  acted  with  extreme  imprudence  ;  not 


having  provided  for  the  payment  of  the 
army's  arrears  at  the  time  they  were  thus 
disbanding  them.  Whiteiock  advised 
Hollis  and  his  party  not  to  press  the  dis 
banding  ;  and  on  finding  them  obstinate, 
drew  off,  as  he  tells  us,  from  that  connec 
tion,  and  came  nearer  to  Cromwell.  P. 
248.  This,  however,  he  had  begun  to  do 
rather  earlier.  Independently  of  the 
danger  of  disgusting  the  army,  it  is  prob 
able  that,  as  soon  as  it  was  disbanded,  the 
royalists  would  have  been  up  in  arms. 
For  the  growth  of  this  discontent,  day  by 
day,  peruse  Whitelock's  journals  for 
March  and  the  three  following  months, 
as  well  as  the  Parliamentary  History. 

3  It  was  only  carried  by  159  to  147, 
March  5, 1647,  that  the  forces  should  be 
commanded  by  Fairfax.  But  on  the  8th 
the  house  voted,  without  a  division,  that 
no  officer  under  him  should  be  above  the 
rank  of  a  colonel,  and  that  no  member  of 
the  house  should  have  any  command  in 
the  army.  It  is  easy  to  see  at  whom  this 
was  levelled.  Commons'  Journals.  They 
voted  at  the  same  time  that  the  officers 
should  all  take  the  covenant,  which  had 
been  rejected  two  years  before  ;  and.  by  a 
majority  of  136  to"  108,  that  they  should 
all  conform  to  the  government  of  the 
church  established  by  both  houses  of 
parliament. 

*  Clar.  State  Papers,  ii.  365.  The  army, 
in  a  declaration  not  long  after  the  king 
fell  into  their  power,  June  24,  use  these 
expressions  :  —  •'  We  clearly  profess  that 
we  do  not  see  how  there  can  be  any 


200  PREPONDERANCE  OF   THE  ARMY.  CHAP.  X. 

the  coldness  of  this  reply,  or,  as  is  more  probable,  the  offer 
had  only  proceeded  from  a  minority  of  the  officers,  no  further 
overture  was  made,  till  not  long  afterwards  the  bold  man- 
His  person  ccuvre  of  Joyce  had  placed  the  king's  person  in 

seized.  thejr    power. 

The  first  effect  of  this  military  violence  was  to  display  the 

The    ariia-     parliament's  deficiency  in  political  courage.    It  con- 

ment  yield      tained,  we  well  know,  a  store  of  energetic  spirits, 

3  the  army.    not  apt  ^Q  swerve  from  their  attachments.      But, 

where  two  parties  are  almost  equally  balanced,  the  defection, 
which  external  circumstances  must  produce  among  those 
timid  and  feeble  men  from  whom  no  assembly  can  be  free, 
even  though  they  should  form  but  a  small  minority,  will  of 
course  give  a  character  of  cowardice  and  vacillation  to  coun 
sels,  which  is  imputed  to  the  whole.  They  immediately  ex 
punged,  by  a  majority  of  96  to  79,  a  vote  of  reprehension 
passed  some  weeks  before,  upon  a  remonstrance  from  the 
army  which  the  presbyterians  had  highly  resented,  and  gave 
other  proofs  of  retracing  their  steps.  But  the  army  was  not 
inclined  to  accept  their  submission  in  full  discharge  of  the 
provocation.  It  had  schemes  of  its  own  for  the  reformation 
and  settlement  of  the  kingdom,  more  extensive  than  those  of 
the  presbyterian  faction.  It  had  its  own  wrongs  also  to  re 
venge.  Advancing  towards  London,  the  general  and  council 
of  war  sent  up  charges  of  treason  against  eleven  principal 
members  of  that  party,  who  obtained  leave  to  retire  beyond 
sea.  Here  may  be  said  to  have  fallen  the  legislative  power 
and  civil  government  of  England  ;  which  from  this  hour  till 
that  of  the  Restoration  had  never  more  than  a  momentary 
and  precarious  gleam  of  existence,  perpetually  interrupted  by 
the  sword. 

Those  who  have  once  bowed  their  knee  to  force,  must  ex 
pect  that  force  will  be  forever  their  master.  In  a  few  weeks 
after  this  submission  of  the  commons  to  the  army,  they  were 
insulted  by  an  unruly,  tumultuous  mob  of  apprentices,  en 
gaged  in  the  presbyterian  politics  of  the  city,  who  compelled 
them  by  actual  violence  to  rescind  several  of  their  late  votes.1 

peace  to   this  kingdom,  firm  or  lasting,  army  from  this  mob  ;  the  riot  being  "a 

without  a  due  provision  for  the   rights,  sudden  tumultuous  thing  of  young  idle 

quiet,  and  immunity  of  his  majesty,  his  people   without   design."      Possibly    this 

royal    family,  and   his   late   partakers."  might  be  the  case;  but  the  tumult  at  the 

Parl.  Hist.  647.  door  of  the  house,  26th  July,  was  such 

i  Hollis   censures  the  speakers  of  the  that  it  could  not  be  divided.    Their  votes 

two  houses  and  others  who  fled   to   the  were  plaiuly  null,  as  being  made  under 


CHA.  I.  -1642-49.       CONDUCT   OF  CROMWELL.  201 

Trampled  upon  by  either  side,  the  two  speakers,  several 
peers,  and  a  great  number  of  the  lower  house,  deemed  it 
somewhat  less  ignominious,  and  certainly  more  politic,  to 
throw  themselves  on  the  protection  of  the  army.  They  were 
accordingly  soon  restored  to  their  places,  at  the  price  of  a 
more  complete  and  irretrievable  subjection  to  the  military 
power  than  they  had  already  undergone.  Though  the  pres- 
byterians  maintained  a  pertinacious  resistance  within  the 
walls  of  the  house,  it  was  evident  that  the  real  power  of 
command  was  gone  from  them,  and  that  Cromwell  with  the 
army  must  either  become  arbiters  between  the  king  and  par 
liament,  or  crush  the  remaining  authority  of  both.1 

There  are  few  circumstances  in  our  history  which  have 
caused  more  perplexity  to  inquirers  than  the  con-  Mysterious 
duct  of  Cromwell  and  his  friends  towards  the  king  conduct  of 
in  the  year  1647.     Those  who  look  only  at  the  Cl 
ambitious  and  dissembling  character  of  that  leader,  or  at  the 
fierce  republicanism  imputed  to  Ireton,  will  hardly  believe 
that  either  of  them  could  harbor  anything  like  sincere  de 
signs  of  restoring  him  even  to  that  remnant  of  sovereignty 
which  the  parliament  would  have   spared.     Yet,  when  we 
consider  attentively  the  public  documents  and   private  me- 

duress.  Yet  the  presbyterians  were  so  p.  206,  persuaded  against  his  will  by 
strong  in  the  commons,  that  a  resolution  Ilaslerig  to  go  to  the  army.  Manchester 
to  annul  all  proceedings  during  the  indeed  had  more  courage  and  honor  ;  but 
speaker's  absence  was  lost  by  97  to  95,  he  was  not  of  much  capacity,  and  his  par- 
after  his  return  ;  and  it  was  only  voted  liaraentary  conduct  was  not  systematic, 
to  repeal  them.  A  motion  to  declare  But  upon  the  whole  it  is  obvious,  on 
that  the  houses,  from  26th  July  to  6th  reading  the  list  of  names  (Parl.  Hist.  757), 
August,  had  been  under  a  force,  was  also  that  the  king's  friends  were  rather  among 
lost  by  78  to  75.  Journals,  9th  and  17th  those  who  stayed  behind,  especially  in  the 
August.  The  lords,  however,  passed  an  lords,  than  among  those  who  went  to  the 
ordinance  to  this  effect;  and,  after  once  army.  Seven  of  eight  peers  who  continued 
more  rejecting  it,  the  commons  agreed  on  to  sit  from  26th  July  to  6th  of  August, 
August  20,  with  a  proviso  that  no  one  1647,  were  impeached  for  it  afterwards 
should  be  called  in  question  for  what  had  (Parl.  Hist.  764),  and  they  were  all  of  the 
been  done.  most  moderate  party.  If  the  king  had 
1  These  transactions  are  best  read  in  any  previous  connection  with  the  city,  he 
the  Commons'  Journals  and  the  Parlia-  acted  very  disingenuously  in  his  letter  to 
mentury  History,  and  next  to  those  in  Fairfax.  Aug.  3,  while  the  contest  was  still 
Whitelock.  Hollis  relates  them  with  pending;  wherein  he  condemns  the  tu- 
great  passion  ;  and  Clarendon,  as  he  does  mult,  and  declares  his  unwillingness  that 
everything  else  that  passed  in  London,  his  friends  should  join  with  the  city 
very  imperfectly.  He  accounts  for  the  against  the  army,  whose  proposals  he  had 
earl  of  Manchester  and  the  speaker  Len-  rejected  the  day  before  with  an  impru- 
thal's  retiring  to  the  army  by  their  per-  dence  of  which  he  was  now  sensible.  This 
suasion  that  the  chief  officers  had  nearly  letter,  as  actually  sent  to  Fairfax,  is  in 
concluded  a  treaty  with  the  king,  and  re-  the  Parliamentary  History,  734,  and  may 
solved  to  have  their  shares  in  it.  This  is  be  compared  with  a  rough  draft  of  the 
a  very  unnecessary  surmise.  Lenthal  was  same,  preserved  in  Clarendon  Papers,  373, 
a  poor-spirited  man,  always  influenced  from  which  it  materially  differs,  being 
by  those  whom  he  thought  the  strongest,  much  sharper  against  the  city. 
and  in  thio  instance,  according  to  Ludlow, 


202  IMPRUDENT   HOPES   OF   THE  KING.          CHAP.  X. 

moirs  of  that  period,  it  does  appear  probable  that  their  first 
intentions  towards  the  king  were  not  unfavorable,  and  so  far 
sincere  that  it  was  their  project  to  make  use  of  his  name 
rather  than  totally  to  set  him  aside.  But  whether  by  grati 
fying  Cromwell  and  his  associates  with  honors,  and  throwing 
the  whole  administration  into  their  hands,  Charles  would 
have  long  contrived  to  keep  a  tarnished  crown  on  his  head, 
must  be  very  problematical. 

The  new  jailers  of  this  unfortunate  prince  began  by  treat- 
immident  "'S  mm  w*tn  unusua^  indulgence,  especially  in  per- 
hopes  of  milting  his  episcopal  chaplains  to  attend  him.  This 
was  deemed  a  pledge  of  what  he  thought  an  in 
valuable  advantage  in  dealing  with  the  army,  that  they  would 
not  insist  upon  the  covenant,  which  in  fact  was  nearly  as 
odious  to  them  as  to  the  royalists,  though  for  very  different 
reasons.  Charles,  naturally  sanguine,  and  utterly  incapable 
in  every  part  of  his  life  of  taking  a  just  view  of  affairs,  was 
extravagantly  elated  by  these  equivocal  testimonials  of  good 
will,  lie  blindly  listened  to  private  insinuations  from  rash 
or  treacherous  friends,  that  the  soldiers  were  with  him,  just 
after  his  seizure  by  Joyce.  u  I  would  have  you  to  know, 
sir,"  he  said  to  Fairfax,  u  that  I  have  as  good  an  interest  in 
the  army  as  yourself;"  an  opinion  as  injudiciously  uttered 
as  it  was  absurdly  conceived.1  These  strange  expectations 

i  Fairfax's  Memoirs  in  Maseres's  Collec-  people,  after  he  could  no  longer  uphold 

tion  of  Tracts,  vol.  i.  p.  447.    "  By  this,"  his  own  violent  will :  hut  upon  some  dis- 

says  Fairfax,  who  had  for  once  found  a  courses  with  him,  the  king  uttering  these 

man  less  discerning  of  the  times  than  him-  words  to  him,  'I  shall  play  my  game  as 

self,  "I  plainly  saw  the  broken  reed  he  well  as  I  can,'  Iretou  replied,' '  If  your 

leaned  on.      The  agitators  had  brought  majesty  have  a  game,  3~ou  must  give  us 

the  king  into  an  opinion  that  the  army  also  the  liberty  to  play  ours.'     Colonel 

was  for  him."     Ireton  said  plainly  to  the  Hutchinson   privately    discoursing    with 

king,  "  Sir,  you  have  an  intention  to  be  his  cousin  about  the  communications  he 

the   arbitrator    between   the   parliament  had  had  with  the  king,  Ireton's  expres- 

and  us;  and  we  mean  to  be  so  between  sions  were  these:  —  'He  gave  us  words, 

your  majesty  and  the  parliament."   Berk-  and  we  paid  him  in  his  own  coin,  when 

ley's  Memoirs.     Ibid.  p.  360.  we  found  he  had  no  real  intention  to  the 

This  folly  of  the  king,  if  Mrs.  Hutch-  people's  good,  but  to  prevail,  by  our  fac- 

inson  is  well  informed,  alienated  Ireton,  tions,  to  regain  by  art  what  he  had  lost 

who  had  been  more  inclined  to  trust  him  in  fight.'  "     P.  274. 

than  is  commonly  believed.   "Cromwell,''  It  must  be  said  for  the  king  that   he 

she  says,  "  was  at  that  time  so  incorrup-  was  by  no  means  more  sanguine  or  more 

tibly  faithful  to  his  trust  and  the  people's  blind  than  his  distinguished  historian  and 

interest,  that  he  could  not  be  drawn  in  to  minister.     Clarendon's  private  letters  are 

practise  even  his  own  usual  and  natural  full  of  strange  and  absurd  expectations, 

dissimulation  on  this  occasion.     His  son-  Even  so  late  as  October,  1647,  he  writes 

in-law  Ireton,  that  was  as  faithful  as  he,  to  Berkley  in  high  hopes  from  the  army, 

was  not  so  fully  of  the  opinion,  till  he  had  and  presses  him  to  make  no  concessions 

tried  it  and  found  to  the  contrary,  but  except  as  to  persons.     ''If  they  see  you 

that  the  king  might  have  been  managed  will  not  yield,  they  must;  for  sure  they 

tu  comply  with  the  public  good  of  his  have  as  much  or  more  need  of  the  king 


CHA.  L— 1642-49.       PROPOSALS   OF   THE   ARMY.  203 

account  for  the  ill  reception  which  in  the  hasty  irritation  of 
disappointment  he  gave  to  the  proposals  of  the  ne  rejects 
army,  when  they  were  actually  tendered  to  him  at  ^  oniTe" 
Hampton  Court,  and  which  seems  to  have  eventu-  army, 
ally  cost  him  his  life.  These  proposals  appear  to  have  been 
drawn  up  by  Ireton,  a  lawyer  by  education,  and  a  man  of 
much  courage  and  capacity.  He  had  been  supposed,  like  a 
large  proportion  of  the  officers,  to  aim  at  a  settlement  of  the 
nation  under  a  democratical  polity.  But  the  army,  even  if 
their  wishes  in  general  went  so  far,  which  is  hardly  evident, 
were  not  yet  so  decidedly  masters  as  to  dictate  a  form  of  gov 
ernment  uncongenial  to  the  ancient  laws  and  fixed  prejudices 
of  the  people.  Something  of  this  tendency  is  discoverable 
in  the  propositions  made  to  the  king,  which  had  never  ap 
peared  in  those  of  the  parliament.  It  was  proposed  that 
parliaments  should  be  biennial ;  that  they  should  never  sit 
less  than  a  hundred  and  twenty  days,  nor  more  than  two 
hundred  and  forty  ;  that  the  representation  of  the  commons 
should  be  reformed,  by  abolishing  small  boroughs  and  in 
creasing  the  number  of  members  for  counties,  so  as  to  render 
the  house  of  commons,  as  near  as  might  be,  an  equal  repre 
sentation  of  the  whole.  In  respect  of  the  militia  and  some 
other  points,  they  either  followed  the  parliamentary  proposi 
tions  of  Newcastle,  or  modified  them  favorably  for  the  king. 
They  excepted  a  very  small  number  of  the  king's  adherents 
from  the  privilege  of  paying  a  composition  for  their  estates, 
and  set  that  of  the  rest  considerably  lower  than  had  been 
fixed  by  the  parliament.  They  stipulated  that  the  royalists 
should  not  sit  in  the  next  parliament.  As  to  religion,  they 
provided  for  liberty  of  conscience,  declared  against  the  impo 
sition  of  the  covenant,  and,  by  insisting  on  the  retrenchment 

than  he  of  them."  P.  379.  The  whole  that  Providence  would  interfere  to  sup- 
tenor,  indeed,  of  Clarendon's  correspond-  port  what  seems  to  them  the  best,  that  is, 
euce  demonstrates,  that,  notwithstanding  their  own  cause.  The  following  passage 
the  fine  remarks  occasionally  scattered  is  a  specimen  :  —  "  Truly  I  am  so  unfit  to 
through  his  History,  he  was  no  practical  bear  a  part  in  carrying  on  this  new  con- 
statesman,  nor  had  any  just  conception,  tention  [by  negotiation  and  concession], 
at  the  time,  of  the  course  of  affairs.  He  that  T  would  not.  to  preserve  myself,  wife, 
never  flinched  from  one  principle,  not  and  children  from  the  lingering  death  of 
very  practicable  or  rational  in  the  cir-  want  by  famine  (for  a  sudden  death  would 
cumstances  of  the  king  —  that  nothing  require  no  courage),  consent  to  the  les- 
was  to  be  receded  from  which  had  ever  selling  any  part  which  I  take  to  be  in  the 
been  demanded.  This  may  be  called  function  of  a  bishop,  or  the  taking  away 
magnanimity  ;  but  no  foreign  or  domestic  the  smallest  prebendary  in  the  church, 
dissension  could  be  settled  if  all  men  or  to  be  bound  not  to  endeavour  to  alter 
were  to  act  upon  it,  or  if  all  men.  like  any  such  alteration.1'  Id.  vol.  iii.  p.  2. 
Charles  and  Clarendon,  were  to  expect  Feb.  4,  1648. 


204  CHARLES   REJECTS   THE  CHAP.  X. 

of  the  coercive  jurisdiction  of  bishops  and  the  abrogation  of 
penalties  for  not  reading  the  common  prayer,  left  it  to  be 
implied  that  both  might  continue  established.1  The  whole 
tenor  of  these  propositions  was  in  a  style  far  more  respectful 
to  the  king,  and  lenient  towards  his  adherents,  than  had  ever 
been  adopted  since  the  beginning  of  the  war.  The  sincerity 
indeed  of  these  overtures  might  be  very  questionable  if  Crom 
well  had  been  concerned  in  them ;  but  they  proceeded  from 
those  elective  tribunes  called  Agitators,  who  had  been  estab 
lished  in  every  regiment  to  superintend  the  interests  of  the 
army.2  And  the  terms  were  surely  as  good  as  Charles  had 
any  reason  to  hope.  The  severities  against  his  party  were 
mitigated.  The  grand  obstacles  to  all  accommodation,  the 
covenant  and  presbyterian  establishment,  were  at  once  re 
moved  ;  or,  if  some  difficulty  might  occur  as  to  the  latter,  in 
consequence  of  the  actual  possession  of  benefices  by  the  pres 
byterian  clergy,  it  seemed  not  absolutely  insuperable.  For 
the  changes  projected  in  the  constitution  of  parliament,  they 
were  not  necessarily  injurious  to  the  monarchy.  That  par 
liament  should  not  be  dissolved  until  it  had  sat  a  certain  time 
was  so  salutary  a  provision,  that  the  triennial  act  was  hardly 
complete  without  it. 

It  is  however  probable,  from  the  king's  extreme  tenacious- 
ness  of  his  prerogative,  that  these  were  the  conditions  that 
he  found  it  most  difficult  to  endure.  Having  obtained, 
through  sir  John  Berkley,  a  sight  of  the  propositions  before 
they  were  openly  made,  he  expressed  much  displeasure  ;  and 
said  that,  if  the  army  were  inclined  to  close  with  him,  they 
would  never  have  demanded  such  hard  terms.  He  seems  to 
have  principally  objected,  at  least  in  words,  to  the  exception 
of  seven  unnamed  persons  from  pardon,  to  the  exclusion  of 

l  Parl.  Hist.  738.     Clarendon  talks  of  nominal   chief  of  an   aristocratical  or  a 

these   proposals  as  worse   than  any  the  democratical  republic.     In  a  well-written 

king  had  ever  received  from  the  parlia-  tract,  called  Vox  Militaris,  containing  a 

ment:   and  Hollis  says  they  "dissolved  defence  of  the  army's  proceedings  and 

the  whole  frame  of  the  monarchy."     It  intentions,  and  published  apparently  in 

is  hard  to  see,  however,  that  they  did  so  July,  1647.  their  desire  to  preserve'the 

in  a  greater  degree  than  those  which  he  king's  rights,   according  to  their  notion 

had  himself  endeavored  to  obtain  as  a  of   them    and   the   general   laws   of    the 

commissioner  at   Uxbridge.     As   to   the  realm,  is  strongly  asserted, 

church,   they  were   manifestly  the   best  2  The   precise  meaning  of   this   word 

that  Charles  had  ever  seen.     As  to  his  seems  obscure.     Some  have  supposed  it 

prerogative  and  the  power  of  the  mon-  to  be  a  corruption  of  adjutators,  as  if 

archy,    he   was    so    thoroughly   beaten,  the  modern  terms  adjutant   meant   the 

that  no  treaty  could  do  him  any  essential  same  thing.     But  I  find  agitator  always 

service;   and  he  had,  in  truth,  only  to  so    spelled    in    the   pamphlets    of    the 

make   his  election,  whether   to   be   the  time. 


CHA.  I.  —  1642-49.       PROPOSALS    OF   THE   ARMY. 


205 


his  party  from  the  next  parliament,  and  to  the  want  of  any 
articles  in  favor  of  the  church.  Berkley  endeavored  to  show 
him  that  it  was  not  likely  that  the  army,  if  meaning  sincerely, 
would  ask  less  than  this.  But  the  king,  still  tampering  with 
the  Scots,  and  keeping  his  eyes  fixed  on  the  city  and  parlia 
ment,  at  that  moment  came  to  an  open  breach  with  the  army, 
disdainfully  refused  the  propositions  when  publicly  tendered 
to  him,  with  such  expressions  of  misplaced  resentment  and 
preposterous  confidence  as  convinced  the  officers  that  they 
could  neither  conciliate  nor  trust  him.1  This  unexpected 
haughtiness  lost  him  all  chance  with  those  proud  and  repub 
lican  spirits  ;  and  as  they  succeeded  about  the  same  time  in 
bridling  the  presbyterian  party  in  parliament,  there  seemed 
no  neces.-ity  for  an  agreement  with  the  king,  and  their 
former  determinations  of  altering  the  frame  of  government 
returned  with  more  revengeful  fury  against  his  person. - 


i  Berkley's  Memoirs,  366.  He  told 
lord  Capel  about  this  time  that  he  ex 
pected  a  war  between  Scotland  and  Eng 
land  ;  that  the  Scots  hoped  for  the  assist 
ance  of  the  presbyterians ;  and  that  he 
wished  his  own  party  to  rise  in  arms  on 
a  proper  conjuncture,  without  which  he 
could  not  hope  for  much  benefit  from  the 
others.  Clarendon,  v,  476. 

t  Berkley,  368,  &c.  Compare  the  let 
ter  of  Ashburnham,  published  in  1648, 
and  reprinted  in  1764;  also  the  memoirs 
of  Hollis,  Huntingdon,  and  Fairfax, 
which  are  all  in  Maseres's  Collection ; 
also  Ludlow,  Hutchinson,  Clarendon, 
Burnet's  Memoirs  of  Hamilton,  and 
some  despatches  in  1647  and  1648,  from 
a  royalist  in  London,  printed  in  the  Ap 
pendix  to  the  second  volume  of  the  Clar 
endon  Papers.  This  correspondent  of 
secretary  Nicholas  believes  Cromwell  and 
Ireton  to  have  ail  along  planned  the 
king's  destruction,  and  set  the  levellers 
on,  till  they  proceeded  so  violently  that 
they  were  forced  to  restrain  them.  This 
also  is  the  conclusion  of  major  Hunting 
don,  in  his  Reasons  for  laying  down  his 
Commission.  But  the  contrary  appears 
to  me  more  probable. 

Two  anecdotes,  well  known  to  those 
conversant  in  English  history,  are  too 
remarkable  to  be  omitted.  It  is  said  by 
the  editor  of  lord  Orrery's  Memoirs,  as  a 
relation  which  he  had  heard  from  that 
noble  person,  that,  in  a  conversation  with 
Cromwell  concerning  the  king's  death, 
the  latter  told  him  he  and  his  friends 
had  once  a  mind  to  have  closed  with  the 
king,  fearing  that  the  Scots  and  presby- 
teriaus  might  do  so,  when  one  of  their 


spies,  who  was  of  thek  ing's  bedcham 
ber,  gave  them  information  of  a  letter 
from  his  majesty  to  the  queen,  sewed  up 
in  the  skirt  of  a  saddle,  and  directing 
them  to  an  inn  where  it  might  be  found. 
They  obtained  the  letter  accordingly,  in 
which  the  king  said  that  he  was  courted 
by  both  factions,  the  Scots  presbyterians 
and  the  army  ;  that  those  which  bade 
fairest  for  him  should  have  him  ;  but  he 
thought  he  should  rather  close  with  the 
Scots  than  the  other.  Upon  this,  find 
ing  themselves  unlikely  to  get  good 
terms  from  the  king,  they  from  that 
time  vowed  his  destruction.  Carte's 
Ormond,  ii.  12. 

A  second  anecdote  is  alluded  to  by 
some  earlier  writers,  but  is  particularly 
told  in  the  following  words  by  Richard 
son,  the  painter,  author  of  soine  anec 
dotes  of  Pope,  edited  by  Spence  :  — 
'•  Lord  Bolingbroke  told  us,  June  12, 
1742  (Mr.  Pope,  lord  Marchmont.  and 
myself),  that  the  second  earl  of  Oxford 
had  often  told  him  that  he  had  seen, 
and  had  in  his  hands,  an  original  letter 
that  Charles  the  First  wrote  to  his  queen, 
in  answer  to  one  of  hers  that  had  been 
intercepted,  and  then  forwarded  to  him  ; 
wherein  she  had  reproached  him  for  hav 
ing  made  those  villains  too  great  conces 
sions,  viz.,  that  Cromwell  should  be  lord- 
lieutenant  of  Ireland  for  life  without 
account;  that  that  kingdom  should  be 
in  the  hands  of  the  party,  with  an  army 
there  kept  which  should  know  no  head 
but  the  lieutenant  ;  that  Cromwell 
should  have  a  garter,  &c.  That  in  this 
letter  of  the  king's  it  was  said  that  she 
should  leave  him  to  manage,  who  was 


206  ESCAPE   OF   CHARLES.  CHAP.  X. 

Charles's  continuance  at  Hampton  Court,  there  can  be 
His  flight  ^^  doubt,  would  have  exposed  him  to  such 
from  iiamp-  imminent  risk  that,  in  escaping  from  thence,  he 
acted  on  a  reasonable  principle  of  self-preserva 
tion.  He  might  probably,  with  due  precautions,  have  reached 
France  or  Jersey.  But  the  hastiness  of  his  retreat  from 
Hampton  Court  giving  no  time,  he  fell  again  into  the  toils 
through  the  helplessness  of  his  situation  and  the  unfortunate 
counsels  of  one  whom  he  trusted.1  The  fortitude  of  his  own 
mind  sustained  him  in  this  state  of  captivity  and  entire  seclu 
sion  from  his  friends.  No  one,  however  sensible  to  the  in 
firmities  of  Charles's  disposition  and  the  defects  of  his  under 
standing,  can  refuse  admiration  to  that  patient  firmness  and 
unaided  acuteness  which  he  displayed  throughout  the  last 
and  most  melancholy  year  of  his  life.  lie  had  now  aban 
doned  all  expectation  of  obtaining  any  present  terms  for  the 
church  or  crown.  He  proposed,  therefore,  what  he  had  pri 
vately  empowered  Murray  to  offer  the  year  before,  to  con 
firm  the  presbyterian  government  for  three  years,  and  to  give 
up  the  militia  during  his  whole  life,  with  other  concessions  of 
importance.2  To  preserve  the  church  lands  from  sale,  to 
shield  his  friends  from  proscription,  to  obtain  a  legal  security 

better    informed    of    all    circumstances  the  parliament  in  that  month.     Herbert 

than  she  could  be;    but  she  might   be  mentions  an    intercepted    letter   of    the 

entirely  easy  as  to  whatever  concessions  queen  (Memoirs,  60) ;  and  even  his  story 

he  should  make  them  ;  for  that  he  should  proves  that  Cromwell  and  his  party  broke 

know  in  due  time  how  to  deal  with  the  off  with  Charles  from  a  conviction  of  his 

rogues,  who,  instead  of  a  silken  garter,  dissimulation.    See  Laing's  note,  iii.  562; 

should  be  fitted  with   a   hempen   cord,  and  the  note  by  Strype,  therein  referred 

So   the  letter   ended ;    which  answer  as  to,  on  Rennet's  Complete  Hist,  of  Eng- 

they  waited  for  so  they  intercepted  ac-  land.  iii.  170,  which  speaks  of  a  "  con- 

cordingly,   and   it   determined  his   fate,  stant  tradition  "  about  this  story,  and  is 

This  letter  lord  Oxford  said  he  had  of-  more  worthy  of  notice,   because  it  was 

fered  50(M.  for.:'  written  before   the    publication  of   lord 

The  authenticity  of  this  latter  story  has  Orrery's  Memoirs,  or  of  the  Itichardson- 

been   constantly  rejected  by  Hume  and  iana. 

the  advocates  of  Charles  in  general ;  and  1  Ashburnham  gives  us  to  understand 
for  one  reason  among  others,  tha*  it  looks  that  the  king  had  made  choice  of  the 
like  a  misrepresentation  of  that  told  by  Isle  of  Wight  previously  to  his  leaving 
lord  Orrery,  which  both  stands  on  good  Hampton  Court,  but  probably  at  his 
authority,  and  is  perfectly  conformable  own  suggestion.  This  seems  confirmed 
to  all  the  memoirs  of  the  time.  I  have,  by  the  king's  letter  in  Harriet's  Mem.  of 
however,  been  informed  that  a  memoran-  Dukes  of  Hamilton,  326.  Clarendon's 
dum  nearly  conformable  to  Richardson's  account  is  a  romance,  with  a  little  mix- 
anecdote  is  extant,  in  the  handwriting  of  tare,  probably,  of  truth.  But  Ashburn- 
lord  Oxford.  ham's  Narrative,  published  in  1830, 

It  is  possible  that  this  letter  is  the  same  proves  that  he  suggested  the  Isle  of 
with  that  mentioned  by  lord  Orrery ;  Wight  in  consequence  of  the  king's 
and  in  that  case  was  written  in  the  being  forced  to  abandon  a  design  he  had 
month  of  October.  Cromwell  seems  to  formed  of  going  to  London,  the  Scots 
have  been  in  treaty  with  the  king  as  late  commissioners  retracting  their  engage- 
as  September  ;  and  advised  him,  accord-  uient  to  support  him. 
ing  to  Berkley,  to  reject  the  proposals  of  -  Parl.  Hist.  799. 


CHA.  I. —  1042-49.        VOTES    AGAINST   HIM.  207 

for  the  restoration  of  the  monarchy  in  his   son,  were   from 
henceforth  the  main  objects  of  all  his  efforts.     It  was,  how 
ever,   far   too    late,   even   for  these   moderate  conditions  of 
peace.     Upon  his  declining  to  pass  four  bills  tendered  to  him 
as  preliminaries  of  a  treaty,  which,  on  that  very  account,  be 
sides  his  objections  to  part  of  their  contents,  he  justly  consid 
ered  as  unfair,  the  parliament  voted  that  no  more  addresses 
should  be  made  to  him,  and  that  they  would  re-  Alarming 
ceive  no  more  messages.1     He  was  placed  in  close  votes 
and  solitary  confinement ;  and  at  a  meeting  of  the  ag 
principal  officers  at  Windsor  it  was  concluded  to  bring  him 
to  trial,  and  avenge  the  blood  shed  in  the  war  by  an  awful 
example  of  punishment ;   Cromwell  and  Ireton,  if  either  of 
them  had  been  ever  favorable  to  the  king,  acceded  at  this 
time  to  the  severity  of  the  rest. 

Yet,  in  the  midst  of  this  peril  and  seeming  abandonment, 
his  affairs  were  really  less  desperate  than  they  had  been  ; 
and  a  few  rays  of  light  broke  for  a  time  through  the  clouds 
that  enveloped  him.  From  the  hour  that  the  Scots  delivered 
him  up  at  Newcastle  they  seem  to  have  felt  the  discredit  of 
such  an  action,  and  longed  for  the  opportunity  of  redeeming 
their  public  name.  They  perceived  more  and  more  that  a 
well-disciplined  army,  under  a  subtle  chief  inveterately  hos 
tile  to  them,  were  rapidly  becoming  masters  of  England. 
Instead  of  that  covenanted  alliance,  that  unity  in  church  and 
state  they  had  expected,  they  were  to  look  for  all  the  jealousy 
and  dissension  that  a  complete  discordance  in  civil  and 
spiritual  polity  could  inspire.  Their  commissioners  therefore 
in  England,  the  earl  of  Lanark,  always  a  moderate  royalist, 
and  the  earl  of  Lauderdale,  a  warm  presbyterian,  had  kept 

i  Jan.  15.  This  vote  was  carried  by  Sidney  and  Evelyn  tellers  for  the  ayes, 

141  to  92.  Id.  831 ;  and  see  Append,  to  Martin  and  Morley  for  the  noes.  The 

2d  vol.  of  Clar.  State  Papers.  Cromwell  increase  of  the  minority  is  remarkable, 

was  now  vehement  against  the  king,  and  shows  how  much  the  king's  refusal 

though  he  had  voted  in  his  favor  on  of  the  terms  offered  him  in  September, 

Sept.  22.  Journals  :  and  Berkley,  372.  and  his  escape  from  Hampton  Court, 

A  proof  that  the  king  was  meant  to  be  had  swollen  the  commonwealth  party  ; 

wholly  rejected  is,  that  at  this  time,  in  to  which,  by  the  way,  colonel  Sidney  at 

the  list  of  the  navy,  the  expression  "  his  this  time  seems  not  to  have  belonged, 

majesty's  ship''  was  changed  to  "the  Ludlow  says,  that  party  hoped  the  king 

parliament's  ship."  Whitelock,  291.  would  not  grant  the  four  bills  :  i.  224. 

The  four  bills  were  founded  on  four  The  commons  published  a  declaration  of 

propositions  (for  which  I  refer  to  Hume  their  reasons  for  making  no  further  ad- 

or  the  Parliamentary  History,  not  to  dresses  to  the  king,  wherein  they  more 

Clarendon,  who  has  misstated  them)  sent  than  insinuate  his  participation  in  the 

down  from  the  lords.  The  lower  house  murder  of  his  father  by  Buckingham, 

voted  to  agree  with  them  by  115  to  106  :  Parl.  Hist.  847. 


208  ASCENDENCY  OF   THE  PRESBYTERIANS.      CHAP.   X. 

up  a  secret  intercourse  with  the  king  at  Hampton  Court. 
Scots  in-  After  his  detention  at  Carisbrook,  they  openly  de- 
vasion.  clared  themselves  against  the  four  bills  proposed 

by  the  English  parliament,  and  at  length  concluded  a  private 
treaty  with  him,  by  which,  on  certain  terms  quite  as  favor 
able  as  lie  could  justly  expect,  they  bound  themselves  to 
enter  England  with  an  army  in  order  to  restore  him  to  his 
freedom  and  dignity.1  This  invasion  Avas  to  be  combined 
with  risings  in  various  parts  of  the  country  :  the  presbyterian 
and  royalist,  though  still  retaining  much  of  animosity  towards 
each  other,  concurring  at  least  in  abhorrence  of  military 
usurpation ;  and  the  common  people  having  very  generally 
returned  to  that  affectionate  respect  for  the  king's  person, 
which  sympathy  for  his  sufferings,  and  a  sense  how  little 
they  had  been  gainers  by  the  change  of  government,  must 
naturally  have  excited.2  The  unfortunate  issue  of  the  Scots 
expedition  under  the  duke  of  Hamilton,  and  of  the  various 
insurrections  throughout  England,  quelled  by  the  vigilance 
and  good  conduct  of  Fairfax  and  Cromwell,  is  well  known. 
But  these  formidable  manifestations  of  the  public 
byterians  sentiment  in  favor  of  peace  with  the  king  on  hon- 
orable  conditions,  wherein  the  city  of  London, 
ruled  by  the  presbyterian  ministers,  took  a  share, 
compelled  the  house  of  commons  to  retract  its  measures. 
They  came  to  a  vote,  by  165  to  99,  that  they  would  not  alter 
the  fundamental  government  by  king,  lords,  and  commons ;  3 
they  abandoned  their  impeachment  against  seven  peers,  the 
most  moderate  of  the  upper  house,  and  the  most  obnoxious 

1  Clarendon,   whose    aversion    to    the  July  25,  1648,  the  commons  gave  as  a 
Scots  warps  his  judgment,  says  that  this  reason  for  insisting  on  the   king's  sur- 
treaty  contained  many  things  dishonor-  render  of  the  militia  as  a  preliminary  to 
able  to  the  English  nation.     Hist.  v.  532,  a  treaty,  that  such  was  the  disaffection 
The  king  lost  a  good  deal  in  the  eyes  of  to  the  parliament  on  all  sides  that  with- 
this  uncompromising  statesman  by  the  out  the  militia  they  could  never  be  se- 
concessions    he    made    in    the    Isle    of  cure.     Rush.  Abr.  vi.  444.     "  The  chief 
Wight.     State   Papers,   387.     I   cannot,  citizens  of  London,"  says  May,  122.  "  and 
for  my  own  part,  see  anything  deroga-  others  called  presbyterians,   though  the 
tory  to  England  in  the  treaty;  for  the  presbyterian  Scots  abominated  this  army, 
temporary  occupation  of  a  few  fortified  wished   good  success    to  these   Scots  no 
towns  in  the  north  can  hardly  be  called  less  than  the  malignants  did.     Wheiice 
eo.      Charles,    there   is   some    reason   to  let  the  reader  judge  of  the  times."     The 
think,  had   on  a  former  occasion  made  fugitive  sheets  of  this  year,  such  as  the 
offers  to  the  Scots  far  more  inconsistent  Mercurius  Aulicus,  bear  witness  to  the 
with  his  duty  to  this  kingdom.  exulting  and  insolent  tone  of  the  royal- 

2  Clarendon.      May,    Breviate    of   the  ists.      They   chuckle   over    Fairfax    and 
Hist,    of   the    Parliament,   in   Ma.'eres's  Cromwell  as  if  they  had  caught  a  couple 
Tracts,  i.  113  ;  AVhitelock.  307,  317,  &c.  of  rats  in  a  trap. 

In  a  conference  between  the  two  houses,        3  April  28,  1648.     Parl.  Hist.  883. 


CIIA.  I.  — 1042-49.       TREATY   OF  NEWPORT.  209 

to  the  army  ; 1  they  restored  the  eleven  members  to  their 
seats ; 2  they  revoked  their  resolution  against  a  personal 
treaty  with  the  king,  and  even  that  which  required  his  assent 
by  certain  preliminary  articles.3  In  a  word,  the  party  for 
distinction's  sake  called  presbyterian,  but  now  rather  to  be 
denominated  constitutional,  regained  its  ascendency.  This 
change  in  the  councils  of  parliament  brought  on  the  treaty 
of  Newport. 

The  treaty  of  Newport  was  set  on  foot  and  managed  by 
those  politicians  of  the  house  of  lords  who,  having  Treaty  of 
long  suspected  no  danger  to  themselves  but  from  XewP°rt- 
the  power  of  the  king,  had  discovered,  somewhat  of  the  lat 
est,  that  the  crown  itself  was  at  stake,  and  that  their  own 
privileges  were  set  on  the  same  cast.  Nothing  was  more  re 
mote  from  the  intentions  of  the  earl  of  Northumberland  or 
lord  Say  than  to  see  themselves  pushed  from  their  seats 
by  such  upstarts  as  Ireton  and  Harrison ;  and  their  present 
mortification  afforded  a  proof  how  men  reckoned  wise  in 
their  generation  become  the  dupes  of  their  own  selfish,  craf 
ty,  and  pusillanimous  policy.  They  now  grew  anxious  to 
see  a  treaty  concluded  with  the  king.  Sensible  that  it  was 
necessary  to  anticipate,  if  possible,  the  return  of  Cromwell 
from  the  north,  they  implored  him  to  comply  at  once  with  all 
the  propositions  of  parliament,  or  at  least  to  yield  in  the  first 
instance  as  far  as  he  meant  to  go.4  They  had  not,  however, 

l  June  6.  These  peers  were  the  earls  appear  from  the  following  short  review  of 
Of  Suffolk,  Middlesex,  and  Lincoln,  lords  what  had  been  done.  1.  At  Newmarket, 
Willoughby  of  Parham,  Berkley,  Huns-  in  June.  1642,  he  absolutely  refused  the 
don,  and  Maynard.  They  were  impeached  nineteen  propositions  tendered  to  him  by 
for  sitting  in  the  house  during  the  tu-  the  lords  and  commons.  2.  In  the  treaty 
mults  from  26th  of  July  to  6th  of  August,  of  Oxford.  March,  1643,  he  seems  to  have 
1647.  The  earl  of  Pembroke,  who  had  made  no  concessions,  not  even  promising 
also  continued  to  sit,  merely  because  he  an  amnesty  to  those  he  had  already  ex- 
was  too  stupid  to  discover  which  party  eluded  from  pardon.  3.  In  the  treaty  of 
was  likely  to  prevail,  escaped  by  truck-  Uxbridge  no  mention  was  made  on  his 
ling  to  the  new  powers.  side  of  exclusion  from  pardon  ;  he  offered 

a  June  8.  to  vest  the  militia  for  seven  years  in  com- 

3  See  Parl.  Hist.  823,  892.  904  921.  924,  missioners  jointly  appointed  by  himself 
959,  996,  for  the  different  votes  on  this  and  parliament,  so  that  it  should  after- 
subject,  wherein  the  presbyterians  grad-  wards  return  to  him,  and  to  limit  the 
ually  beat  the  independent  or  republican  jurisdiction  of  the  bishops.  4.  In  the 
party,  but  with  very  small  and  precarious  winter  of  1645  he  not  only  offered  to  dis- 
majorities.  band  his  forces,  but  to  let  the  militia  be 

*  Clarendon,  vi.  155.    He  is  very  absurd  vested  for  seven  years  in  commissioners 

in  imagining  that  any  of  the  parliamen-  to  be  appointed  by  the  two  houses,  and 

tary    commissioners    would     have    been  afterwards  to  be  settled  by  bill ;  also  to 

satisfied  with  "an  act  of  indemnity  and  give  the  nomination  of  officers  of  state 

oblivion."  and  judges  pro  hac  vice  to  the  houses.  5. 

That  the  parliament  had  some  reason  to  He  went  no  farther  in  substance  till  May, 

expect  the  king's  firmness  of  purpose  to  1647;  when  he  offered  the  militia  for  ten 

give  way  in  spite  of  all  his  haggling  will  years,  as  well  as  great  limitations 

VOL.  ii.  14 


210 


TKEATY   OF  NEWPORT. 


mitigated  in  any  degree  the  rigorous  conditions  so  often  pro 
posed  ;  nor  did  the  king  during  this  treaty  obtain  any  recip 
rocal  concession  worth  mentioning  in  return  for  his  surrender 
of  almost  all  that  could  be  demanded.  Did  the  positive 
adherence  of  the  parliament  to  all  these  propositions,  in  cir 
cumstances  so  perilous  to  themselves,  display  less  unreason 
able  pertinacity  than  that  so  often  imputed  to  Charles  ?  Or 
if,  as  was  the  fact,  the  majority  which  the  presbyterians  had 
obtained  was  so  precarious  that  they  dared  not  hazard  it  by 
suggesting  any  more  moderate  counsels,  what  rational  secu 
rity  would  the  treaty  have  afforded  him,  had  he  even  come  at 
once  into  all  their  requisitions  ?  His  real  error  was  to  have 
entered  upon  any  treaty,  and  still  more  to  have  drawn  it  out 
by  tardy  and  ineffectual  capitulations.  There  had  long  been 
only  one  course  either  for  safety  or  for  honor,  the  abdication 
of  his  royal  office  ;  now  probably  too  late  to  preserve  his  life, 


copacy,  and  the  continuance  of  presby- 
teriau  government  for  three  years  ;  the 
whole  matter  to  be  afterwards  settled  by 
bill  on  the  advice  of  the  assembly  of  di 
vines,  and  twenty  more  of  his  own  nomi 
nation.  6.  In  his  letter  from  Carisbrook, 
Nov.  1647,  he  gave  up  the  militia  for  his 
life.  This  was  in  effect  to  sacrifice  almost 
everything  as  to  immediate  power  ;  but 
he  struggled  to  save  the  church  lands 
from  confiscation,  which  would  have 
rendered  it  hardly  practicable  to  restore 
episcopacy  in  future.  His  future  con 
cessions  in  the  treaty  of  Newport,  though 
very  slowly  extorted,  were  comparatively 
trifling. 

What  Clarendon  thought  of  the  treaty 
of  Newport  may  be  imagined.  "  You 
may  easily  conclude,''  he  writes  to  Digby, 
k'  how  fit  a  counsellor  I  am  like  to  be, 
when  the  best  that  is  proposed  is  that 
which  I  would  not  consent  unto  to  pre 
serve  the  kingdom  from  ashes.  I  can  tell 
you  worse  of  myself  than  this  ;  which  is, 
that  there  may  be  some  reasonable  ex 
pedients  which  possibly  might  iu  truth 
restore  and  preserve  all,  in  which  I  could 
bear  no  part."  P.  459.  See  also  pp.  351 
and  416.  1  do  not  divine  what  he  means 
by  this,  unless  it  were  the  king's  abdica 
tion.  But  what  he  could  not  have  ap 
proved  was,  that  the  king  had  no 
thoughts  of  dealing  sincerely  with  the 
parliament  in  this  treaty,  and  gave  Or- 
mond  directions  to  obey  all  his  wife's 
commands,  but  not  to  obey  any  further 
orders  he  might  send,  nor  to  be  startled 
at  his  great  concessions  respecting  Ire 
land,  for  they  would  come  to  nothing. 
Carte's  Papers,  i.  185.  See  Mr.  Brodie's 
remarks  011  this,  iv.  143-146.  He  hud 


agreed  to  give  up  the  government  of  Ire 
land  for  twenty  years  to  the  parliament. 
In  his  letter  sent  from  Holmby  in  May, 
1647;  he  had  declared  that  he  would  give 
full  satisfaction  with  respect  to  Ireland. 
But  he  thus  explains  himself  to  the 
queen  :  —  '*  I  have  so  couched  that 
article  that,  if  the  Irish  give  me  cause, 
I  may  interpret  it  enough  to  their  ad 
vantage.  For  I  only  say  that  I  will  give 
them  (the  two  houses)  full  satisfaction  as 
to  the  management  of  the  war,  nor  do  I 
promise  to  continue  the  war;  so  that,  if 
I  find  reason  to  make  a  good  peace  there, 
my  engagement  is  at  an  end.  Wherefore 
make  this  my  interpretation  known  to 
the  Irish."  "  What  reliance,"  says  Mr. 
Laing,  from  whom  I  transcribe  this  pas 
sage  (which  I  cannot  find  in  the  Claren 
don  State  Papers  quoted  by  him).  "  could 
parliament  place  at  the  beginning  of  the 
dispute,  or  at  any  subsequent  period,  on 
the  word  or  moderation  of  a  prince  whose 
solemn  and  written  declarations  were  so 
full  of  equivocation?"  Hist,  of  Scot 
land,  iii.  409.  It  may  here  be  added 
that,  though  Charles  had  given  his 
parole  to  colonel  Hammond,  and  had  the 
sentinels  removed  in  consequence,  he 
was  engaged  during  most  part  of  his 
stay  at  Carisbrook  in  schemes  for  an 
escape.  See  Col.  Cooke's  Narrative, 

Srinted  with  Herbert's  Memoirs  ;  and 
i  Kush.  Abr.  vi.  534.  But  his  enemies 
were  apprised  of  this  intention,  and  even 
of  an  attempt  to  escape  by  removing  a  bar 
of  his  window,  as  appears  by  the  letters 
from  the  committee  of  Derby  House, 
Cromwell  and  others,  to  col.  Hauuuoud, 
published  in  1664. 


CIIA.  I.  — 1G42-49.     SCHEMES   OF   PARLIAMEXT-MEX.  211 

but  still  more  honorable  than  the  treaty  of  Newport.  Yet 
though  he  was  desirous  to  make  his  escape  to  France,  I  have 
not  observed  any  hint  that  he  had  thoughts  of  resigning  the 
crown  ;  whether  from  any  mistaken  sense  of  obligation,  or 
from  an  apprehension  that  it  might  affect  the  succession  of 
his  son. 

There  can  be  no  more  erroneous  opinion  than  that  of  such 
as  believe  that  the  desire  of  overturning  the  monarchy  pro 
duced  the  civil  war,  rather  than  that  the  civil  war  brought 
on  the  former.  In  a  peaceful  and  ancient  kingdom  like 
England  the  thought  of  change  could  not  spontaneously 
arise.  A  very  few  speculative  men,  by  the  study  of  antiq 
uity,  or  by  observation  of  the  prosperity  of  Venice  and 
Holland,  might  be  led  to  an  abstract  preference  of  republi 
can  politics  ;  some  fanatics  might  aspire  to  a  Jewish  the 
ocracy  ;  but  at  the  meeting  of  the  long  parliament  we  have 
not  the  slightest  cause  to  suppose  that  any  party,  or  any 
number  of  persons  among  its  members,  had  formed  what 
must  then  have  appeared  so  extravagant  a  conception.1  The 
insuperable  distrust  of  the  king's  designs,  the  irritation  ex 
cited  by  the  sufferings  of  the  war,  the  impracticability,  which 
every  attempt  at  negotiation  displayed,  of  obtaining  his  ac 
quiescence  to  terms  deemed  indispensable,  gradually  created 
a  powerful  faction,  whose  chief  bond  of  union  was  a  deter 
mination  to  set  him  aside.2  What  further  scheme  they  had 
planned  is  uncertain  :  none  probably  in  which  any  number 
were  agreed  :  some  looked  to  the  prince  of  Wales,  others, 
perhaps,  at  one  time  to  the  elector  palatine ; 3  but  necessity 

i  Clarendon  mentions    an   expression  these  exceptions,  I  know  not  that  we  can 

that  dropped  from  Henry  Martin  in  con-  fix  on  any  individual  member  of  parlia- 

versation.  not  long  after  the  meeting  of  ment  the  charge  of  an  intention  to  sub- 

the  parliament :  ••  1  do  not  think  one  man  vert  the  constitution  till  1646  or  1647. 

wise  enough  to  govern  us  all."    This  may  2  Pamphlets  may  be  found  as  early  as 

doubtless  be  taken  in  a  sense  perfectly  1643  which  breathe  this  spirit ;  but  they 

compatible  with  our  limited   monarchy,  are   certainly   rare    till    1645  and   1646. 

But    Martin's    republicanism   was    soon  Such  are  "Plain  English,"  1643;  ''The 

apparent:    he  was  sent  to  the  Tower  in  Character  of  an  Anti-malignant,"  1645; 

August,  1643,  for  language  reflecting  on  "Last  Warning  to  all  the  Inhabitants  of 

the   king.    Parl.  Hist.  161.     A  Mr.  Chil-  London."  1647. 

liugworth  had  before  incurred  the  same  3  Charles  Louis,  elector  palatine,  elder 

funishment  for  a  like  offence,  December  brother  of  the  princes  Rupert  and  Mau- 

,  1641.    Nelson,  ii.  714.     Sir  Henry  Lud-  rice,  gave  cause  to  suspect  that  he  was 

low,  father  of  the  regicide,  was  also  cen-  looking  towards  the  throne.     He  left  the 

sured  on  the  same  account.     As  the  op-  king's  quarters,  where  he  had  been  at  the 

posite  faction  grew  stronger,  Martin  was  commencement  of  the  war,  and  retired  to 

not  only  restored  to  his  seat,  but  the  vote  Holland  ;  whence  he  wrote,  as  well  as  his 

against  him  was  expunged.     Vane,  I  pre-  mother,    the  queen  of  Bohemia,  to  the 

sume.  took  up  republican  principles  pret-  parliament,  disclaiming  and  renouncing 

ty  early  ;    perhaps  also  Uaslerig.      With  prince  Itupert,  and    begging    their   owu 


212       PROGRESS  OF  REPUBLICAN  PARTY.    CHAP.  X. 

itself  must  have  suggested  to  many  the  idea  of  a  republican 
settlement.  In  the  new-modelled  army  of  1645,  composed 
of  independents  and  enthusiasts  of  every  denomination,  a 
fervid  eagerness  for  changes  in  the  civil  polity,  as  well  as  in 
religion,  was  soon  found  to  predominate.  Not  checked,  like 
the  two  houses,  by  attachment  to  forms,  and  by  the  influence 
of  lawyers,  they  launched  forth  into  varied  projects  of  re 
form,  sometimes  judicious,  or  at  least  plausible,  sometimes 
wildly  fanatical.  They  reckoned  the  king  a  tyrant,  whom, 
as  they  might  fight  against,  they  might  also  put  to  death,  and 
whom  it  were  folly  to  provoke  if  he  were  again  to  become 
their  master.  Elated  with  their  victories,  they  began  already 
in  imagination  to  carve  out  the  kingdom  for  themselves ; 
and  remembered  that  saying  so  congenial  to  a  revolutionary 
army,  "  that  the  first  of  monarch s  was  a  successful  leader, 
the  first  of  nobles  were  his  followers." 1 

The  knowledge  of  this  innovating  spirit  in  the  army  gave 

confidence  to  the  violent  party  in  parliament,  and 

progress  of      increased  its  numbers  by  the  accession  of  some  of 

a  repub-         those  to  whom  nature  has  given  a  fine  sense  for 

ai  y'     discerning  their  own  advantage.     It  was  doubtless 

swollen  through  the  publication  of  the  king's  letters,  and  his 

pensions  might  be  paid.  He  came  over  more  than  all  their  discourses  of  destroy- 
to  London  in  August,  1644,  took  the  cov-  ing  monarchy  ;  and  that  towards  this  end 
enaut,  and  courted  the  parliament.  They  they  find  assistance  from  those  who  from 
showed,  however,  at  first,  a  good  deal  of  their  hearts  abhor  their  confusions.''  P. 
jealousy  of  him  ;  and  intimated  that  his  308.  These  expressions  seem  more  ap- 
affairs  would  prosper  better  by  his  leaving  plicable  by  far  to  the  elector  than  to 
the  kingdom.  Whiteloek.  101.  Rush.  Cromwell.  But  the  former  was  not  dan- 
Abr.  iv.  359.  He  did  not  take  this  hint,  gerous  to  the  parliament,  though  it  was 
and  obtained  next  year  an  allowance  of  deemed  fit  to  treat  him  with  respect.  In 
8000Z.  per  annum.  Id.  145.  Lady  Kane-  March,  1647,  we  find  a  committee  of  both 
lagh,  in  a  letter  to  Hyde,  March,  1644,  houses  appointed  to  receive  some  intel- 
conjuriug  him,  by  his  regard  for  lord  ligence  which  the  prince  elector  desired  to 
Falkland's  memory,  to  use  all  his  inftu-  communicate  to  the  parliament  of  great 
ence  to  pro,  ure  a  message  from  the  king  importance  to  the  protestant  religion, 
for  a  treaty,  adds,  '•  Methinks  what  I  Whiteloek.  241.  Nothing  further  appears 
have  informed  my  sister,  and  what  she  about  this  intelligence ;  which  looks  as  if 
will  inform  you,  of  the  posture  the  he  were  merely  afraid  of  being  forgotten, 
prince  elector's  affairs  are  in  here,  should  He  left  England  in  1649.  and  died  in  1680. 
be  a  motive  to  hasten  away  this  message."  l  Baxter's  Life,  50.  He  ascribes  the 
Clar.  State  Papers,  ii.  167.  Clarendon  increase  of  enthusiasm  in  the  army  to 
himself,  in  a  letter  to  Nicholas,  Dec.  12,  the  loss  of  its  presbyterian  chaplains, 
1646  (where  he  gives  his  opinion  that  the  who  left  it  for  their  benefices,  on  the  re- 
independents  look  more  to  a  change  of  duction  of  the  king's  party  and  the  new- 
the  king  and  his  line  than  of  the  monar-  modelling  of  the  troops.  The  officers 
chy  itself,  and  would  restore  the  full  pre-  then  took  on  them  to  act  as  preachers, 
rogative  of  the  crown  to  one  of  their  own  Id.  54  :  and  Neal,  183.  I  conceive  that 
choice),  proceeds  in  these  remarkable  the  year  1645  is  that  to  which  we  must 
words :  "  And  I  pray  God  they  have  not  refer  the  appearance  of  a  republican 
such  a  nose  of  wax  ready  for  their  im-  party  in  considerable  numbers,  though 
pression.  This  it  is  makes  me  tremble  not  yet  among  the  house  of  commons. 


CHA.  I.  — 1642-49.  PROGRESS  OF  REPUBLICAN  PARTY.   213 

pertinacity  in  clinging  to  his  prerogative.  And  the  com 
plexion  of  the  house  of  commons  was  materially  altered  by 
the  introduction  at  once  of  a  large  body  of  fresh  members. 
They  had  at  the  beginning  abstained  from  issuing  writs  to 
replace  those  whose  death  or  expulsion  had  left  their  seats 
vacant.  These  vacancies,  by  the  disabling  votes  against  all 
the  king's  party,1  became  so  numerous  that  it  seemed  a  glar 
ing  violation  of  the  popular  principles  to  which  they  appealed 
to  carry  on  the  public  business  with  so  maimed  a  representa 
tion  of  the  people.  It  was,  however,  plainly  impossible  to 
have  elections  in  many  parts  of  the  kingdom  while  the  royal 
army  was  in  strength  ;  and  the  change,  by  filling  up  nearly 
two  hundred  vacancies  at  once,  was  likely  to  become  so  im 
portant,  that  some  feared  that  the  cavaliers,  others  that  the 
independents  and  republicans,  might  find  their  advantage  in 
it.'2  The  latter  party  were  generally  earnest  for  new  elec 
tions  ;  and  carried  their  point  against  the  presbyterians  in 
September,  1645,  when  new  writs  were  ordered  for  all  the 
places  which  were  left  deficient  of  one  or  both  representa 
tives.3  The  result  of  these  elections,  though  a  few  persons 
rather  friendly  to  the  king  came  into  the  house,  was  on  the 
whole  very  favorable  to  the  army.  The  self-denying  ordi 
nance  no  longer  being  in  operation,  the  principal  officers 
were  elected  on  every  side  ;  and,  with  not  many  exceptions, 
recruited  the  ranks  of  that  small  body  which  had  already 
been  marked  by  implacable  dislike  of  the  king,  and  by  zeal 
for  a  total  new-modelling  of  the  government.4  In  the  sum 
mer  of  1646  this  party  had  so  far  obtained  the  upper  hand, 
that,  according  to  one  of  our  best  authorities,  the  Scots  com- 

1  These    passed    against    the    royalist  <  That  the  house  of  commons  in  De- 
members   separately,  and   for   the   most  cernber,   1645,   entertained    no  views   of 
part  in  the  first  months  of  the  war.  altering    the   fundamental   constitution, 

2  "  The  best  friends  of  the  parliament  appears  from  some  of  their  resolutions  as 
were  not  without  fears  what  the  issue  of  to  conditions  of  peace  :     "  That  Fairfax 
the  new  elections  might  be;  for  though  should    have    an    earldom,    with    5000  i. 
the  people  durst  not  choose  such  as  were  a-year;    Cromwell  and  Waller   baronies, 
open  enemies  to  them,  yet  probably  they  with    half    that  estate  ;    Essex,    North- 
would  such  as  were  most  likely  to  be  for  umberland,    and    two    more,    be    made 
a  peace  on  any  terms,  corruptly  prefer-  dukes;    Manchester  and  Salisbury  mar 
ring    the   fruition  of   their  estates   and  quises;   and  other  peers  of  their  party 
sensual    enjoyments    before    the    public  be  elevated  to  higher  ranks ;    Haslerig, 
interest,-'  &c.     Ludlow,  i.  168.     This  is  Stapylton,   and   Skipton    to    have    pen- 
a  fair  confession  how  little  the  common-  sions."    Par!.  Hist.  403.    Whitelook.  182. 
wealth    party   had   the   support   of    the  These  votes  do  not  speak  much  for  the 
nation.  magnanimity    and    disinterestedness    of 

3  C.  Journals.     Whitelock,    168.     The  that  assembly,  though  it  may  suit  polit- 
borough  ot   Southwark   had  just  before  ical  romancers  to  declaim  about  it. 
petitioned  for  a  new  writ,   its  member 

being  dead  or  disabled. 


214       PROGRESS  OF  REPUBLICAN  PARTY.    CHAP.  X. 

missioners  had  all  imaginable  difficulty  to  prevent  his  deposi 
tion.  In  the  course  of  the  year  1047  more  overt  proofs  of 
a  design  to  change  the  established  constitution  were  given  by 
a  party  out  of  doors.  A  petition  was  addressed  u  to  the 
supreme  authority  of  this  nation,  the  commons  assembled  in 
parliament."  It  was  voted  upon  a  division  that  the  house 
dislikes  this  petition,  and  cannot  approve  of  its  being  deliv 
ered  ;  and  afterwards,  by  a  majority  of  only  94  to  86,  that 
it  was  seditious  and  insolent,  and  should  be  burnt  by  the 
hangman.1  Yet  the  first  decisive  proof,  perhaps,  which  the 
journals  of  parliament  afford  of  the  existence  of  a  republi 
can  party,  was  the  vote  of  22d  September,  1647,  that  they 
would  once  again  make  application  to  the  king  for  those 
things  which  they  judged  necessary  for  the  welfare  and  safe 
ty  of  the  kingdom.  This  was  carried  by  70  to  23.2  Their 
subsequent  resolution  of  January  4,  1 648,  against  any  further 
addresses  to  the  king,  which  passed  by  a  majority  of  141  to 
91,  was  a  virtual  renunciation  of  allegiance.  The  lords,  after 
a  warm  debate,  concurred  in  this  vote.  And  the  army  had 
in  November,  1647,  before  the  king's  escape  from  Hampton 
Court,  published  a  declaration  of  their  design  for  the  settle 
ment  of  the  nation  under  a  sovereign  representative  assem 
bly,  which  should  possess  authority  to  make  or  repeal  laws, 
and  to  call  magistrates  to  account. 

We  are  not  certainly  to  conclude  that  all  who,  in  1648, 
had  made  up  their  minds  against  the  king's  restoration,  were 
equally  averse  to  all  regal  government.  The  prince  of  Wales 


1  Commons'  Journals,  May  4  and  18,  the  minority.    I  suppose  it  is  from  some 
1647.     This  minority  were  not,  in  gen-  of  these  divisions  that  baron  Maseres  has 
eral,  republican ;  but  were  unwilling  to  reckoned    the    republican   party   in   the 
increase  the  irritation  of  the  army  by  so  house  not  to  exceed  thirty. 

strong  a  vote.  It  was  resolved  on  Nov.  6,  1647,  that 

2  Commons'  Journals.   Whitelock,  271.  the  king  of  England,  for  the  time  being, 
Purl.  Hist.  781.     They  had  just  been  ex-  was  bound,  injustice  and  by  the  duty  of 
asperated  by  his  evasion  of  their  propo-  his  office,  to  give  his  assent  to  all  such 
sitions.    Id.  778.     By  the  smallness  of  the  laws  as  by  the  lords  and  commons  in  par- 
numbers,  and  the  names  of  the  tellers,  it  liament  shall  be  adjudged  to  be  for  the 
seems  as  if  the   presbyterian  party  had  good  of  the  kingdom,  and  by  them  ten- 
been  almost  entirely  absent;    which  may  dered  unto  him  for  his  assent.     But  the 
be  also  inferred  from  other  parts  of  the  previous  question  was  carried  on  the  fol- 
Journals.     See  October  9.  for  a  long  list  lowing  addition  :  '•  And  in  case  the  laws 
of  absentees.     Hasierig  and  Evelyn,  both  so  offered  unto  him  shall  not  thereupon 
of  the  army  faction,  told  the  ayes.  Mar-  be  assented  unto  by  him,  that  neverthe- 
tin  and  sir  Peter  Weutworth  the   noes,  less  they  are  as  valid  to  all  intents  and 
The  house  had  divided  the  day  before  on  purposes  as  if  his  assent  had  been  there- 
the  question  for  going  into  a  committee  unto  had  and  obtained,  which  they  do 
to  take  this  matter  into  consideration,  84  insist    upon    as   an    undoubted    right." 
to  34 ;  Cromwell  and  Evelyn  telling  the  Commons'  Journals. 

majority,  AVentworth  and  Kaiusborough 


CHA.  I.  — 1642-49.      SCHEME   FOR  TRIAL   OF   CHARLES.        215 


had  taken  so  active,  and,  for  a  moment,  so  successful  a  share 
in  the  war  of  that  year,  that  his  father's  enemies  were  become 
his  own.  Meetings  however  were  held,  where  the  military 
and  parliamentary  chiefs  discussed  the  schemes  of  raising  the 
duke  of  York,  or  his  younger  brother  the  duke  of  Glocester, 
to  the  throne.  Cromwell  especially  wavered,  or  pretended 
to  waver,  as  to  the  settlement  of  the  nation  ;  nor  is  there  any 
evidence,  so  far  as  I  know,  that  he  had  ever  professed  himself 
averse  to  monarchy,  till,  dexterously  mounting  on  the  wave 
which  he  could  not  stem,  he  led  on  those  zealots  who  had 
resolved  to  celebrate  the  inauguration  of  their  new  common 
wealth  with  the  blood  of  a  victim  king.1 

It  was  about  the  end  of  1647,  as  I  have  said,  that  the 
principal  officers   took    the   determination,    which  Scheme 
had  been  already  menaced  by   some  of  the  agi-  JSceiJ  of* 
tators,  of  bringing  the  king,  as  the  first  and  great-  bringing 
est    delinquent,    to    public    justice. 2      Too    stern  triaL  °b 


1  Ludlow  says  that  Cromwell,  ';  finding 
the  king's  frieuds  grow  strong  in  1*3-48,  be 
gan  to  court  the  commonwealth's  party. 
The  latter  told  him  he  knew  how  to  cajole 
and  give  them  good  words  when  he  had 
occasion  to  make  use  of  them;   whereat, 
breaking  out  into  a  rage,   he  said  they 
were  a  proud   sort  of  people,  and  only 
considerable  in  their  own  conceits."     P. 
240.     Does  this  look  as  if  he  had  been 
reckoned  one  of  them  ? 

2  Clarendon  says  that  there  were  many 
consultations  among  the  officers  about  the 
best  mode  of  disposing  of  the  king  ;  some 
were  for  deposing  him,  others  for  poison 
or  assassination,  which,  he  fancies,  would 
have  been  put  in  practice  if  they  could 
have  prevailed  on  Hammond.     But  this 
is  not  warranted  by  our  better  authori 
ties. 

It  is  hard  to  say  at  what  time  the  first 
bold  man  dared  to  talk  of  bringing  the 
king  to  justice.  But  in  a  letter  of  Baillie 
to  Alexander  Henderson,  May  19,  1*346. 
he  says,  •'  If  God  have  hardened  him,  so 
far  as  I  can  perceive,  this  people  will 
strive  to  have  him  in  their  power,  and 
make  an  example  of  him  ;  labhor  to  think 
what  they  speak  of  execution ; "  ii.  20; 
published  also  in  Dalrymple's  Memorials 
of  Charles  I.,  p.  16*3.  Proofs  may  also  be 
brought  from  pamphlets  by  Lilburne  and 
others  in  1647.  especially  towards  the  end 
of  that  year  ;  and  the  remonstrance  of  the 
Scots  parliament,  dated  Aug.  13.  alludes 
to  such  language.  Rush.  Abr.  vi.  245. 
Berkley  indeed  positively  assures  us  that 
the  resolution  was  taken  at  Windsor,  in 
a  council  of  officers,  soon  after  the  king's 


confinement  at  Carisbrook  ;  and  this  with 
so  much  particularity  of  circumstance 
that,  if  we  reject  his  account,  we  must  set 
aside  the  whole  of  his  memoirs  at  the 
same  time.  Maseres' Tracts,  i.  383.  But 
it  is  fully  confirmed  by  an  independent 
testimony,  William  Allen,  himself  one  of 
the  council  of  officers  and  adjutant-gen 
eral  of  the  army,  who,  in  a  letter  ad 
dressed  to  Fleetwood,  and  published  in 
1659,  declares  that,  after  much  consulta 
tion  and  prayer  at  Windsor  Castle,  in  the 
beginning  of  1648,  they  had  "  come  to  a 
very  clear  and  joint  resolution  that  it 
was  their  duty  to  call  Charles  Stuart,  that 
man  of  blood,  to  an  account  for  the  blood 
he  had  shed,  and  mischief  he  had  done  to 
his  utmost  against  the  Lord's  cause  and 
people  in  these  poor  nations."  This  is  to 
be  found  in  Somers'  Tracts,  vi.  499.  The 
only  discrepancy,  if  it  is  one,  between  him 
and  Berkley,  is  as  to  the  precise  time, 
which  the  other  seems  to  place  in  the  end 
of  1647.  But  this  might  be  lapse  of 
memory  in  either  party ;  nor  is  it  clear, 
on  looking  attentively  at  Berkley's  narra 
tion,  that  he  determines  the  time.  Ash- 
burnham  says,  "  For  some  days  before 
the  king's  remove  from  Hampton  Court, 
there  was  scarcely  a  day  in  which  several 
alarms  were  not  brought  him  by  and 
from  several  considerable  persons,  both 
well-affected  to  him  and  likely  to  know 
much  of  what  was  then  in  agitation,  of 
the  resolution  which  a  violent  party  in 
the  army  had  to  take  away  his  life.  And 
that  such  a  design  there  was.  there  were 
strong  insinuations  to  persuade.''  See 
also  his  Narrative,  published  in  1830. 


216  WHICH  IS   FINALLY  DETERMINED.  CHAP.  X. 

and  haughty,  too  confident  of  the  righteousness  of  their 
actions,  to  think  of  private  assassination,  they  sought  to 
gratify  their  pride  by  the  solemnity  and  notoriousness,  by  the 
very  infamy  and  eventual  danger,  of  an  act  unprecedented 
in  the  history  of  nations.  Throughout  the  year  1G48,  this 
This  is  design,  though  suspended,  became  familiar  to  the 

finally  de-  people's  expectation.1  The  commonwealth's  men 
termined.  ancl  tlie  }eve}}ers?  t}ie  various  sectaries  (admitting 
a  few  exceptions),  grew  clamorous  for  the  king's  death. 
Petitions  were  presented  to  the  commons,  praying  for  justice 
on  all  delinquents,  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest.2  And  not 
long  afterwards  the  general  officers  of  the  army  came  forward 
with  a  long  remonstrance  against  any  treaty,  and  insisting 
that  the  capital  and  grand  author  of  their  troubles  be  speed 
ily  brought  to  justice,  for  the  treason,  blood,  and  mischief 
whereof  he  had  been  guilty.3  This  was  soon  followed  by  the 
vote  of  the  presbyterian  party,  that  the  answers  of  the  king 
to  the  propositions  of  both  houses  are  a  ground  for  the  house 
to  proceed  upon  for  the  settlement  of  the  peace  of  the  king- 
Seciusion  of  ^om>4  ^J  the  violent  expulsion,  or,  as  it  was  called, 
presbyterian  seclusion,  of  all  the  presbyterian  members  from 
the  house,  and  the  ordinance  of  a  minority,  consti 
tuting  the  high  court  of  justice  for  the  trial  of  the  king.5 

A  very  small  number  among  those  who  sat  in  this  strange 
tribunal  upon  Charles  I.  were  undoubtedly  capable  of  taking 
statesmanlike  views  of  the  interests  of  their  party,  and  might 
consider  his  death  a  politic  expedient  for  consolidating  the 
new  settlement.  It  seemed  to  involve  the  army,  which  had 
openly  abetted  the  act,  and  even  the  nation  by  its  passive 
consent,  in  such  inexpiable  guilt  towards  the  royal  family, 
that  neither  common  prudence  nor  a  sense  of  shame  would 
permit  them  to  suffer  its  restoration.  But  by  far  the  greater 
part  of  the  regicides  such  considerations  were  either  over 
looked  or  kept  in  the  background.  Their  more  powerful 

1  Somers'  Tracts,  v.  160,  162.  ble  that  this  remonstrance  itself  is  rather 

2  Sept.    11.     Parl.   Hist.    1077.     May's  against  the  king  than  absolutely  against 
Breviate  in  Maseres'  Tracts,  vol.  i.  p.  127.  all  monarchy  ;  for  one  of  the  proposals 
Whitelock,  335.  contained  in  it  is  that  kings  should  be 

s  Nov.  17.     Parl.  Hist.  1077.     White-  chosen  by  the  people,  and  have  no  nega- 

lock,   p.  355.     A  motion,  Nov.  30,  that  tive  voice. 

the  house  do  now  proceed  on  the  remon-  *  The   division   was   on    the    previous 

strance  of  the  army,  was  lost  by  125  to  question,  which  was  lost  by  129  to  83. 

58  (printed  53  in    Parl.   Hist.).      Com-  5  No  division  took  place  on  any  of  tho 

mons'  Journals.     So  weak  was  still  the  votes  respecting  the  king's  trial, 
republican  party.     It  is  indeed  remarka- 


CHA.  I.  — 1642-49.     MOTIVES   OF   THE  KING'S   JUDGES.        217 

motive  was  that  fierce  fanatical  hatred  of  the  king,  the 
natural  fruit  of  long  civil  dissension,  inflamed  by  preachers 
more  dark  and  sanguinary  than  those  they  addressed,  and  by 
a  perverted  study  of  the  Jewish  scriptures.  They  had  been 
wrought  to  believe,  not  that  his  execution  would  be  justified 
by  state  necessity  or  any  such  feeble  grounds  of  human  rea 
soning,  but  that  it  was  a  bounden  duty,  which  with  a  safe 
conscience  they  could  not  neglect.  Such  was  the  persuasion 
of  Ludlow  and  Ilutchinson,  the  most  respectable  names 
among  the  regicides  ;  both  of  them  free  from  all  suspicion  of 
interestedness  or  hypocrisy,  and  less  intoxicated 

i        f          •    •  ,,T  ^11  Motives  of 

than  the  rest  by  fanaticism.  "  I  was  fully  per-  some  of 
suaded,"  says  the  former,  "  that  an  accommodation  jjj^j,"*'* 
with  the  king  was  unsafe  to  the  people  of  England, 
and  unjust  and  wicked  in  the  nature  of  it.  The  former, 
besides  that  it  was  obvious  to  all  men,  the  king  himself  had 
proved,  by  the  duplicity  of  his  dealing  with  the  parliament, 
which  manifestly  appeared  in  his  own  papers,  taken  at  the 
battle  of  Naseby  and  elsewhere.  Of  the  latter  I  was  con 
vinced  by  the  express  words  of  God's  law  :  *  that  blood 
defileth  the  land,  and  the  land  cannot  be  cleansed  of  the 
blood  that  is  shed  therein,  but  by  the  blood  of  him  that  shed 
it.'  (Numbers,  c.  xxxv.  v.  33.)  And  therefore  I  could  not 
consent  to  leave  the  guilt  of  so  much  blood  on  the  nation,  and 
thereby  to  draw  down  the  just  vengeance  of  God  upon  us  all, 
when  it  was  most  evident  that  the  war  had  been  occasioned 
by  the  invasion  of  our  rights  and  open  breach  of  our  laws 
and  constitution  on  the  king's  part."  J  "  As  for  Mr.  Ilutchin 
son,"  says  his  high-souled  consort,  "  although  he  was  very 
much  confirmed  in  his  judgment  concerning  the  cause,  yet, 
being  here  called  to  an  extraordinary  action,  whereof  many 
were  of  several  minds,  he  addressed  himself  to  God  by 
prayer,  desiring  the  Lord  that,  if  through  any  human  frailty 
he  were  led  into  any  error  or  false  opinion  in  those  great 
transactions,  he  would  open  his  eyes,  and  not  suffer  him  to 
proceed,  but  that  he  would  confirm  his  spirit  in  the  truth,  and 
lead  him  by  a  right-enlightened  conscience ;  and  finding  no 
check,  but  a  confirmation  in  his  conscience  that  it  was  his 
duty  to  act  as  he  did,  he,  upon  serious  debate,  both  privately 
and  in  his  addresses  to  God,  and  in  conferences  with  conscien 
tious,  upright,  unbiased  persons,  proceeded  to  sign  the  sen- 

i  Ludlow,  i.  267. 


218  QUESTION   OF   CHARLES'S   EXECUTION.         CHAP.  X. 

tence  against  the  king.  Although  he  did  not  then  believe 
but  it  might  one  day  come  to  be  again  disputed  among  men, 
yet  both  he  and  others  thought  they  could  not  refu-e  it  with 
out  giving  up  the  people  of  God,  whom  they  had  led  forth 
and  engaged  themselves  unto  by  the  oath  of  God,  into  the 
hands  of  God's  and  their  enemies ;  and  therefore  he  cast 
himself  upon  God's  protection,  acting  according  to  the  dic 
tates  of  a  conscience  which  he  had  sought  the  law  to  guide  ; 
and  accordingly  the  Lord  did  signalize  his  favor  afterward  to 
him."  ! 

The  execution  of  Charles  I.  has  been  mentioned  in  later 
ages  by  a  few  with  unlimited  praise  —  by  some 

Question  of         °.  ,     P  J.  ,  ,  .  J          .  . 

his  execu-  with  faint  and  ambiguous  censure  —  by  most  with 
tion  dis-  vehement  reprobation.  My  own  judgment  will 
possibly  be  anticipated  by  the  reader  of  the  pre 
ceding  pages.  I  shall  certainly  not  rest  it  on  the  imaginary 
sacredness  and  divine  origin  of  royalty,  nor  even  on  the 
irresponsibility  with  which  the  law  of  almost  every  country 
invests  the  person  of  its  sovereign.  Far  be  it  from  me  to 
contend  that  no  cases  may  be  conceived,  that  no  instances 
may  be  found  in  history,  wherein  the  sympathy  of  mankind 
and  the  sound  principles  of  political  justice  would  approve  a 
public  judicial  sentence  as  the  due  reward  of  tyranny  and 
perfidiousness.  But  we  may  confidently  deny  that  Charles  I. 
was  thus  to  be  singled  out  as  a  warning  to  tyrants.  His 
offences  were  not,  in  the  worst  interpretation,  of  that  atro 
cious  character  which  calls  down  the  vengeance  of  insulted 
humanity,  regardless  of  positive  law.  His  government  had 
been  very  arbitrary  ;  but  it  may  well  be  doubted  whether 
any,  even  of  his  ministers,  could  have  suffered  death  for 
their  share  in  it,  without  introducing  a  principle  of  barbar 
ous  vindictiveness.  Far  from  the  sanguinary  misanthropy 
of  some  monarch:?,  or  the  revengeful  fury  of  others,  he  had 
in  no  instance  displayed,  nor  does  the  minutest  scrutiny  since 
made  into  his  character  entitle  us  to  suppose,  any  malevolent 
dispositions  beyond  some  proneness  to  anger,  and  a  consid 
erable  degree  of  harshness  in  his  demeanor.2  As  for  the 

1  Hutchinson,  p.  303.  He  once  forgot  himself  so  far  as  to  cane 

2  The  king's  manners  were  not  good,  the  younger  sir  Henry  Vane  for  coming 
He   spoke  and   behaved    to    ladies   with  into  a  room  of  the  palace  reserved  for 
indelicacy  in   public.     See  Warburton's  persons   of   higher    rank.      Carte's    Or- 
Notes    on    Clarendon,   vii.   629  ;    and   a  mond,  i.  356,  where  other  instances  are 
passage  in  Miltoirs  Defensio  pro  Popnlo  mentioned  by  that  friendly  writer.     He 
Auglicauo.  quoted  by  Harris  and  Brodie.  had  hi  truth  none  who  loved  him.  till  his 


CHA.  I.  —  lC-t-2-49.        WHO   THE   FIRST   AGGRESSOR.  219 

charge  of  having  caused  the  bloodshed  of  the  war,  upon 
which,  and  not  on  any  former  misgovernment,  his  condem 
nation  was  grounded,  it  was  as  ill-established  as  it  would 
have  been  insufficient.  "Well  might  the  earl  of  Northum 
berland  say,  when  the  ordinance  for  the  king's  trial  was 
before  the  lords,  that  the  greatest  part  of  the  people  of 
England  were  not  yet  satisfied  whether  the  king  levied  war 
first  against  the  houses,  or  the  houses  against  him.1  The 
fact,  in  my  opinion,  was  entirely  otherwise.  It  is  quite  an 
other  question  whether  the  parliament  were  justified  in  their 
resistance  to  the  king's  legal  authority.  But  we  may  contend 
that,  when  Hotham,  by  their  command,  shut  the  gates  of 
Hull  against  his  sovereign,  when  the  militia  was  called  out 
in  different  counties  by  an  ordinance  of  the  two  houses,  both 
of  which  preceded  by  several  weeks  any  levying  of  forces 
for  the  king,  the  bonds  of  our  constitutional  law  were  by 
them  and  their  servants  snapped  asunder ;  and  it  would  be 
the  mere  pedantry  and  chicane  of  political  casuistry  to  in 
quire,  even  if  the  fact  could  be  better  ascertained,  whether 
at  Edgehill,  or  in  the  minor  skirmishes  that  preceded,  the 
first  carbine  was  discharged  by  a  cavalier  or  a  roundhead. 
The  aggressor  in  a  war  is  not  the  first  who  uses  force,  but 
the  first  who  renders  force  necessary. 

But,  whether  we  may  think  this  war  to  have  originated  in 
the  king's  or  the  parliament's  aggression,  it  is  still  evident 
that  the  former  had  a  fair  cause  with  the  nation,  a  cause 
which  it  was  no  plain  violation  of  justice  to  defend.  H'e\ 
was  supported  by  the  greater  part  of  the  peers,  by  full  onel 
third  of  the  commons,  by  the  principal  body  of  the  gentry,! 

misfortune  softened  his  temper  and  ex-  mixon,  Hist,  of  the  Stuarts,  p.  140.  It 
cited  sympathy.  was  brought  forward  on  Burnet's  au- 
An  anecdote,  strongly  intimating  the  thority,  and  also  on  that  of  the  duke  of 
violence  of  Charles's  temper,  has  been  Hamilton,  killed  in  1712,  by  Dr.  Birch, 
rejected  by  his  advocates.  It  is  said  no  incompetent  judge  of  historical  evi- 
thiit  Burnet,  in  searching  the  Hamilton  dence  :  it  seems  confirmed  by  an  intima- 
papers,  found  that  the  king,  on  discover-  tion  given  by  Burnet  himself  in  his  Me- 
ing  the  celebrated  letter  of  the  Scots  moirs  of  the  duke  of  Hamilton,  p.  161. 
covenanting  lords  to  the  king  of  France,  It  is  also  mentioned  by  Scott  of  Scots- 
was  so  incensed  that  he  sent  an  order  to  tarvet,  a  contemporary  writer.  Harris, 
sir  William  Balfour.  lieutenant-governor  p.  350,  quotes  other  authorities,  earlier 
of  the  Tower,  to  cut  off  the  head  of  his  than  the  anecdote  told  of  Burnet :  and 
prisoner,  lord  London  ;  but  that  the  tipori  the  whole  I  think  the  story  deserv- 
marquis  of  Hamilton,  to  whom  Balfour  ing  credit,  and  by  no  means  so  much  to 
immediately  communicated  this,  urged  be  slighted  as  the  Oxford  editor  of  Bur- 
so  strongly  on  the  king  that  the  city  net  has  thought  fit  to  do. 
would  be  up  in  arms  on  this  violence,  1  Clement  Walker,  Hist,  of  Indepen- 
that  with  reluctance  he  withdrew  the  dency,  part  ii.  p.  55. 
warrant.  This  story  is  told  by  Old- 


220  CHARLES'S   CHARACTER.  CHAP.  X. 

and  a  large  proportion  of  other  classes.  If  his  adherents  did 
not  form,  as  I  think  they  did  not,  the  majority  of  the  people, 
they  were  at  least  more  numerous,  beyond  comparison,  than 
those  who  demanded  or  approved  of  his  death.  The  steady 
deliberate  perseverance  of  so  considerable  a  body  in  any 
cause  takes  away  the  right  of  punishment  from  the  con 
querors,  beyond  what  their  own  safety  or  reasonable  indem 
nification  may  require.  The  vanquished  are  to  be  judged 
by  the  rules  of  national,  not  of  municipal  law.  Hence,  if 
Charles,  after  having  by  a  course  of  victories  or  the  defec 
tion  of  the  people  prostrated  all  opposition,  had  abused  his 
triumph  by  the  execution  of  Essex  or  Hampden,  Fairfax  or 
Cromwell,  I  think  that  later  ages  would  have  disapproved  of 
their  deaths  as  positively,  though  not  quite  as  vehemently,  as 
they  have  of  his  own.  The  line  is  not  easily  drawn,  in 
abstract  reasoning,  between  the  treason  which  is  justly  pun 
ished,  and  the  social  schism  which  is  beyond  the  proper 
boundaries  of  law ;  but  the  civil  war  of  England  seems 
plainly  to  fall  within  the  latter  description.  These  objec 
tions  strike  me  as  unanswerable,  even  if  the  trial  of  Charles 
had  been  sanctioned  by  the  voice  of  the  nation  through  its 
legitimate  representatives,  or  at  least  such  a  fair  and  full 
convention  as  might,  in  great  necessity,  supply  the  place  of 
lawful  authority.  But  it  was,  as  we  all  know,  the  act  of  a 
bold  but  very  small  minority,  who,  having  forcibly  expelled 
their  colleagues  from  parliament,  had  usurped,  under  the 
protection  of  a  military  force,  that  power  which  all  England 
reckoned  illegal.  I  cannot  perceive  what  there  was  in  the 
imagined  solemnity  of  this  proceeding,  in  that  insolent  mock 
ery  of  the  forms  of  justice,  accompanied  by  all  unfairness 
and  inhumanity  in  its  circumstances,  which  can  alleviate  the 
guilt  of  the  transaction  ;  and  if  it  be  alleged  that  many  of 
the  regicides  were  firmly  persuaded  in  their  consciences  of 
the  right  and  duty  of  condemning  the  king,  we  may  surely 
remember  that  private  murderers  have  often  had  the  same 
apology. 

In  discussing  each  particular  transaction  in  the  life  of 
His  char-  Charles,  as  of  any  other  sovereign,  it  is  required 
acter.  ]jy  t]ie  truth  of  history  to  spare  no  just  animad 

version  upon  his  faults  ;  especially  where  much  art  has  been 
employed  by  the  writers  most  in  repute  to  carry  the  stream 
of  public  prejudice  in  an  opposite  direction.  But  when  we 


CHA.  I.  — 1642-49.   CHARLES'S  CHARACTER.  221 

come  to  a  general  estimate  of  his  character,  we  should  act 
unfairly  not  to  give  their  full  weight  to  those  peculiar  cir 
cumstances  of  his  condition  in  this  worldly  scene  which  tend 
to  account  for  and  extenuate  his  failings.  The  station  of 
kings  is,  in  a  moral  sense,  so  unfavorable,  that  those  who  are 
least  prone  to  servile  admiration  should  be  on  their  guard 
against  the  opposite  error  of  an  uncandid  severity.  There 
seems  no  fairer  method  of  estimating  the  intrinsic  worth  of 
a  sovereign  than  to  treat  him  as  a  subject,  and  to  judge,  so 
far  as  the  history  of  his  life  enables  us,  what  he  would  have 
been  in  that  more  private  and  happier  condition  from  which 
the  chance  of  birth  has  excluded  him.  Tried  by  this  test, 
we  cannot  doubt  that  Charles  I.  would  have  been  not  alto 
gether  an  amiable  man,  but  one  deserving  of  general  esteem ; 
his  firm  and  conscientious  virtues  the  same,  his  deviations 
from  right  far  less  frequent  than  upon  the  throne.  It  is  to 
be  pleaded  for  this  prince,  that  his  youth  had  breathed  but 
the  contaminated  air  of  a  profligate  and  servile  court  —  that 
he  had  imbibed  the  lessons  of  arbitrary  power  from  all  who 
surrounded  him  —  that  he  had  been  betrayed  by  a  father's 
culpable  blindness  into  the  dangerous  society  of  an  ambitious, 
unprincipled  favorite.  To  have  maintained  so  much  correct 
ness  of  morality  as  his  enemies  confess,  was  a  proof  of 
Charles's  virtuous  dispositions  ;  but  his  advocates  are  com 
pelled  also  to  own  that  he  did  not  escape  as  little  injured 
by  the  poisonous  adulation  to  which  he  had  listened.  Of  a 
temper  by  nature,  and  by  want  of  restraint,  too  passionate, 
though  not  vindictive,  and,  though  not  cruel,  certainly  defi 
cient  in  gentleness  and  humanity,  he  was  entirely  unfit  for 
the  very  difficult  station  of  royalty,  and  especially  for  that 
of  a  constitutional  king.  It  is  impossible  to  excuse  his  vio 
lations  of  liberty  on  the  score  of  ignorance,  especially  after 
the  Petition  of  Right ;  because  his  impatience  of  opposition 
from  his  council  made  it  unsafe  to  give  him  any  advice  that 
thwarted  his  determination.  His  other  great  fault  was  want 
of  sincerity  —  a  fault  that  appeared  in  all  parts  of  his  life, 
and  from  which  no  one  who  has  paid  the  subject  any  atten 
tion  will  pretend  to  exculpate  him.  Those  indeed  who  know 
nothing  but  what  they  find  in  Hume  may  believe,  on  Hume's 
authority,  that  the  king's  contemporaries  never  deemed  of 
imputing  to  him  any  deviation  from  good  faith  ;  as  if  the 
whole  conduct  of  the  parliament  had  not  been  evidently 


222  ICOX  BASILIK& 

• 

founded  upon  a  distrust  which  on  many  occasions  they  very 
explicitly  declared.  But,  so  far  as  this  insincerity  was 
shown  in  the  course  of  his  troubles,  it  was  a  failing  which 
untoward  circumstances  are  apt  to  produce,  and  which  the 
extreme  hypocrisy  of  many  among  his  adversaries  might 
sometimes  palliate.  Few  personages  in  history,  we  should 
recollect,  have  had  so  much  of  their  actions  revealed,  and 
commented  upon,  as  Charles ;  it  is  perhaps  a  mortifying  truth 
that  those  who  have  stood  highest  with  posterity  have  seldom 
been  those  who  have  been  most  accurately  known. 

The  turn  of  his  mind  was  rather  peculiar,  and  laid  him 
open  with  some  justice  to  very  opposite  censures  —  for  an 
extreme  obstinacy  in  retaining  his  opinion,  and  for  an  exces 
sive  facility  in  adopting  that  of  others.  But  the  apparent 
incongruity  ceases,  when  we  observe  that  he  was  tenacious  of 
ends  and  irresolute  as  to  means  ;  better  fitted  to  reason  than 
to  act ;  never  swerving  from  a  few  main  principles,  but  diffi 
dent  of  his  own  judgment  in  its  application  to  the  course  of 
affairs.  His  chief  talent  was  an  acuteness  in  dispute  ;  a 
talent  not  usually  much  exercised  by  kings,  but  which  the 
strange  events  of  his  life  called  into  action.  He  had,  unfor 
tunately  for  himself,  gone  into  the  study  most  fashionable  in 
that  age,  of  polemical  theology ;  and,  though  not  at  all 
learned,  had  read  enough  of  the  English  divines  to  maintain 
their  side  of  the  current  controversies  with  much  dexterity. 
But  this  unkingly  talent  was  a  poor  compensation  for  the 
continual  mistakes  of  his  judgment  in  the  art  of  government 
and  the  conduct  of  his  affairs.1 

It  seems  natural  not  to  leave  untouched  in  this  place  the 
icon  famous  problem  of  the  Icon  Basilike,  which  has 

Basiiike.  been  deemed  an  irrefragable  evidence  both  of  the 
virtues  and  the  talents  of  Charles.  But  the  authenticity  of  this 
work  can  hardly  be  any  longer  a  question  among  judicious 

1    Clarendon,    Collier,   and   the    high-  losopher.  who  said  he  had  no  shame  in 

church  writers  in  general,  are  very  proud  yielding  to  the    master   of  fifty  legions, 

of  the    superiority  they  fancy  the   king  But  those  who  take  the  trouble  to  read 

to  have  obtained  in  a  long  argumenta-  these  papers  will  probably  uot  think  one 

tion  held  at  Newcastle  with  Henderson,  party  so  much  the  stronger  as  to  shorten 

a  Scots  minister,  on  church  authority  and  the  other's  days.  They  show  that  Charles 

government.      This    was    conducted   in  held  those  extravagant  tenets  about  the 

writing,  and  the  papers  afterwards  pub-  authority    of    the    church    and  of   the 

lished.     They  may  be  read  in  the  king's  fathers,   which    are    irreconcilable    with 

Works,    and    in    Collier,    p.    842.     It   is  protestantism  in  any  country  where  it  is 

more    than   insinuated   that   Henderson  not  established,  and  are  likely  to  drive  it 

died  of  mortification   at  his  defeat.     He  out  where  it  is  so. 
certainly  had  not  the  excuse  of  the  phi- 


CHA.  I.  — 1042-49.       THE  KING'S   LETTERS.  223 

men.  We  have  letters  from  Gauden  and  his  family  asserting 
it  as  his  own  in  the  most  express  terms,  and  making  it  the 
ground  of  a  claim  for  reward.  We  know  that  the  king's  sons 
were  both  convinced  that  it  was  not  their  father's  composition, 
and  that  Clarendon  was  satisfied  of  the  ,-ame.  If  Gauden 
not  only  set  up  a  false  claim  to  so  famous  a  work,  but  per 
suaded  those  nearest  to  the  king  to  surrender  that  precious 
record,  as  it  had  been  reckoned,  of  his  dying  sentiments,  it 
was  an  instance  of  successful  impudence  which  has  hardly  a 
parallel.  But  I  should  be  content  to  rest  the  case  on  that 
internal  evidence  which  has  been  so  often  alleged  for  its  au 
thenticity.  The  Icon  has,  to  my  judgment,  all  the  air  of  a 
fictitious  composition.  Cold,  stiff,  elaborate,  without  a  single 
allusion  that  bespeaks  the  superior  knowledge  of  facts  which 
the  king  must  have  possessed,  it  contains  little  but  those  rhe 
torical  commonplaces  which  would  suggest  themselves  to  any 
forger.  The  prejudices  of  party,  which  exercise  a  strange 
influence  in  matters  of  taste,  have  caused  this  book  to  be 
extravagantly  praised.  It  has  doubtless  a  certain  air  of  grave 
dignity,  and  the  periods  are  more  artificially  constructed  than 
was  usual  in  that  age  (a  circumstance  not  in  favor  of  its  au 
thenticity)  ;  but  the  style  is  encumbered  with  frigid  meta 
phors,  as  is  said  to  be  the  case  in  Gauden's  acknowledged 
writings  ;  and  the  thoughts  are  neither  beautiful  nor  always 
exempt  from  affectation.  The  king's  letters  during  his  im 
prisonment,  preserved  in  the  Clarendon  State  Papers,  and 
especially  one  to  his  son,  from  which  an  extract  is  given  in 
the  History  of  the  Rebellion,  are  more  satisfactory  proofs  of 
his  integrity  than  the  labored  self-panegyrics  of  the  Icon 
Basilike.1 

i  The  note  on  this  passage,  which,  on  connected  with  the  general  objects  of  this 

account  of  its  length,  was  placed  at  the  work.      It  is  needless  to   add   that  the 

end  of  the  volume  in  the  two  first  edi-  author  entertains  not  the  smallest  doubt 

tions,  is  withdrawn  in  this,  as  relating  to  about  the  justness  of  the  arguments  he 

a  matter  of  literary  controversy,   little  had  employed.  —  Note  to  the  3d  edit. 


224  ABOLITION   OF   THE  MONARCHY,  CHAP.  X. 


PART  II. 

Abolition  of  the  Monarchy  —  and  of  the  House  of  Lords  —  Commonwealth  — 
Schemes  of  Cromwell  —  His  Conversations  with  Whitelock  —  Unpopularity  of 
the  Parliament —  Their  Fall  —  Little  Parliament  — Instrument  of  Government  — 
Parliament  called  by  Cromwell — Dissolved  by  him  —  Intrigues  of  the  King  and 
his  Party — Insurrectionary  Movements  in  1655  —  Rigorous  Measures  of  Cromwell 

—  His  Arbitrary  Government  —  lie  summons  another  Parliament  —  Designs  to 
take  the  Crown  —  The  Project   fails  —  but  his  Authority  as  Protector  is  aug 
mented  —  He  aims  at  forming  a  new  House  of  Lords  —  His  Death  —  and  Char 
acter  —  Richard,  his  Son,  succeeds  him  —  is  supported  by  some  prudent  Men  — 
but  opposed  by  a  Coalition  —  Calls  a  Parliament  —  The  Army  overthrow  both  — 
Long    Parliament  restored  —  Expelled    again  —  and  again   restored  —  Impossi 
bility  of  establishing  a  Republic  —  Intrigues  of  the  Royalists  —  They  unite  with 
the  Presbyterians  —  Conspiracy  of  1659  —  Interference  of  Monk  —  His  Disshmila- 
tion  —  Secluded  Members  return  to  their  Seats  —  Difficulties  about  the  Restora 
tion  —  New  Parliament  —  King  restored  —  Whether  previous  Conditions  required 

—  Plan  of  reviving  the  Treaty  of  Newport  inexpedient  —  Difficulty  of  framing 
Conditions  —  Conduct  of  the   Convention  about  this  not  blamable  —  except  in 
Respect  of  the  Militia  —  Conduct  of  Monk. 

THE  death  of  Charles  I.  was  pressed  forward  rather 
Abolition  through  personal  hatred  and  superstition  than  out 
of  the  of  any  notion  of  its  necessity  to  secure  a  republi- 

monarchy,  cftn  administration.  That  party  was  still  so  weak 
that  the  commons  came  more  slowly,  and  with  more  differ 
ence  of  judgment,  than  might  be  expected,  to  an  absolute 
renunciation  of  monarchy.  They  voted,  indeed,  that  the 
people  are,  under  God,  the  original  of  all  just  power ;  and 
that  whatever  is  enacted  by  the  commons  in  parliament  hath 
the  force  of  law,  although  the  consent  and  concurrence  of  the 
king  or  house  of  peers  be  not  had  thereto  ;  terms  manifestly 
not  exclusive  of  the  nominal  continuance  of  the  two  latter. 
They  altered  the  public  style  from  the  king's  name  to  that  of 
the  parliament,  and  gave  other  indications  of  their  intentions; 
but  the  vote  for  the  abolition  of  monarchy  did  not  pass  till 
the  7th  of  February,  after  a  debate,  according  to  Whitelock, 
but  without  a  division.  None  of  that  clamorous  fanaticism 
showed  itself  which,  within  the  memory  of  many,1  produced, 
from  a  far  more  numerous  assembly,  an  instantaneous  decis 
ion  against  monarchy.  Wise  men  might  easily  perceive  that 
the  regal  power  was  only  suspended  through  the  force  of  cir- 

i  1827. 


COMMONWEALTH.      AXD   OF   THE  HOUSE  OF   LORDS.  225 

cu instances,  not  abrogated  by  any  real  change  in  public  opin 
ion. 

The  house  of  lords,  still  less  able  than  the  crown  to  with 
stand  the  inroads  of  democracy,  fell  by  a  vote  of  and  of  the 
the  commons  at  the  same  time.  It  had  continued  house  of 
during  the  whole  progress  of  the  war  to  keep  up  lords' 
as  much  dignity  as  the  state  of  affairs  would  permit ;  tena 
cious  of  small  privileges  and  offering  much  temporary  oppo 
sition  in  higher  matters,  though  always  receding  in  the  end 
from  a  contention  wherein  it  could  not  be  successful.  The 
commons,  in  return,  gave  them  respectful  language,  and  dis 
countenanced  the  rude  innovators  who  talked  against  the 
rights  of  the  peerage.  They  voted,  on  occasion  of  some  ru 
mors,  that  they  held  themselves  obliged,  by  the  fundamental 
laws  of  the  kingdom  and  their  covenant,  to  preserve  the  peer 
age  with  the  rights  and  privileges  belonging  to  the  house  of 
peers,  equally  with  their  own.1  Yet  this  was  with  a  secret 
reserve  that  the  lords  should  be  of  the  same  mind  as  them 
selves.  For,  the  upper  house  having  resented  some  words 
dropped  from  sir  John  Evelyn,  at  a  conference  concerning 
the  removal  of  the  king  to  Warwick  castle,  importing  that  the 
commons  might  be  compelled  to  act  without  them,  the  com 
mons,  vindicating  their  member  as  if  his  words  did  not  bear 
that  interpretation,  yet  added,  in  the  same  breath,  a  plain 
hint  that  it  was  not  beyond  their  own  views  of  what  might 
be  done :  "  hoping  that  their  lordships  did  not  intend  by  their 
inference  upon  the  words,  even  in  the  sense  they  took  the 
same,  so  to  bind  up  this  house  to  one  way  of  proceeding  as 
that  in  no  case  whatsoever,  though  never  so  extraordinary, 
though  never  so  much  importing  the  honor  and  interest  of 
the  kingdom,  the  commons  of  England  might  not  do  their 
duty,  for  the  good  and  safety  of  the  kingdom,  in  such  a  way 
as  they  may,  if  they  cannot  do  it  in  such  a  way  as  they 
would  and  most  desire."  2 

After  the  violent  seclusion  of  the  constitutional  party  from 
the  house  of  commons,  on  the  6th  of  December,  1648,  very 
few,  not  generally  more  than  five,  peers  continued  to  meet. 
Their  number  was  suddenly  increased  to  twelve  on  the  2d 
of  January,  when  the  vote  of  the  commons,  that  it  is  high- 

l  Parl.  Hist.  349.     The  council  of  war  and    sir    William   Waller's   Vindication,, 

more   than  once,  in  the  year  1647,  de-  192. 

clared  their  intention  of  preserving  the  '•*  Commons'  Journal,  13th    and   19th 

rights  of  the  peerage.     Whitelock,  288;  May,  164.G. 
VOL.  II.                                   15 


226  MEETING   OF   PEERS.  CHAP.  X. 

treason  in  the  king  of  England  for  the  time  being  to  levy  war 
against  parliament,  and  the  ordinance  constituting  the  high 
court  of  justice,  were  sent  up  for  their  concurrence.  These 
were  unanimously  rejected  with  more  spirit  than  some,  at 
least,  of  their  number  might  be  expected  to  display.  Yet,  as 
if  apprehensive  of  giving  too  much  umbrage,  they  voted  at 
their  next  meeting  to  prepare  an  ordinance,  making  it 
treasonable  for  any  future  king  of  England  to  levy  war 
against  the  parliament  —  a  measure  quite  as  unconstitutional 
as  that  they  had  rejected.  They  continued  to  linger  on  the 
verge  of  annihilation  during  the  month,  making  petty  orders 
about  writs  of  error,  from  four  to  six  being  present ;  they 
even  met  on  the  30th  of  January.  On  the  1st  of  February, 
six  peers  forming  the  house,  it  was  moved,  "that  they  would 
take  into  consideration  the  settlement  of  the  government  of 
England  and  Ireland,  in  this  present  conjuncture  of  things, 
upon  the  death  of  the  king  ; "  and  ordered  that  these  lords 
following  (naming  those  present  and  three  more)  be  ap 
pointed  to  join  with  a  proportionable  number  of  the  house  of 
commons  for  that  purpose.  Soon  after,  their  speaker  ac 
quainted  the  house  that  he  had  that  morning  received  a 
letter  from  the  earl  of  Northumberland,  "with  a  paper 
enclosed,  of  very  great  concernment ; "  and  for  the  present 
the  house  ordered  that  it  should  be  sealed  up  with  the 
speaker's  seal.  This  probably  related  to  the  impending  dis 
solution  of  their  house,  for  they  found  next  day  that  their 
messengers  sent  to  the  commons  had  not  been  admitted. 
They  persisted,  however,  in  meeting  till  the  6th,  when  they 
made  a  trifling  order,  and  adjourned  "  till  ten  o'clock  to 
morrow."  l  That  morrow  was  the  25th  April,  1GGO.  For 
the  commons  having  the  same  day  rejected,  by  a  majority  of 
forty-four  to  twenty-nine,  a  motion  that  they  \vould  take  the 
advice  of  the  house  of  lords  in  the  exercise  of  the  legislative 
power,  resolved  that  the  house  of  peers  was  useless  and 
dangerous,  and  ought  to  be  abolished.2  It  should  be  noticed 

1  Lords' Journals.  thirty-one  to  eighteen  that  "a  message 

2  Commons'  Journals.      It  had    been  from    the  lords   should     be    received ; ;) 
proposed  to  continue  the  house  of  lords  Cromwell    strongly  supporting   the   mo- 
as  a  court  of  judicature,  or  as  a  court  of  tion,  and  being  a  teller  for  it ;  and  again 
consultation,  or  in  some  way  or  other  to  on  Jan.  18,  when,  the  opposite  party  pre- 
keep  it  up.     The  majority,  it  will  be  ob-  Tailing,  it  was  negatived  by  twenty -five 
served,  was  not  very  great ;  so  far  was  the  to  eighteen  to  ask  their  assent  to  the  vote 
democratic  scheme" from  being  universal  of  the  4th  instant,  that  the  sovereignty 
even  within  the  house.     Whitelock.  377.  resides  in  the  commons  ;   which,  doubt- 
Two  divisions  had  already  taken  place  :  less,  if  true,  could  not  require  the  lords' 
one  on  Jan.  9,  when  it  was  carried   by  concurrence. 


COMMONWEALTH.  COMMONWEALTH.  227 

that  there  was  no  intention  of  taking  away  the  dignity  of 
peerage ;  the  lords,  throughout  the  whole  duration  of  the 
commonwealth,  retained  their  titles,  *not  only  in  common 
usage,  but  in  all  legal  and  parliamentary  documents.  The 
earl  of  Pembroke,  basest  among  the  base,  condescended  to 
sit  in  the  house  of  commons  as  knight  for  the  county  of 
Berks,  and  was  received,  notwithstanding  his  proverbial 
meanness  and  stupidity,  with  such  excessive  honor  as  dis 
played  the  character  of  those  low-minded  upstarts  who 
formed  a  sufficiently  numerous  portion  of  the  house  to  give 
their  tone  to  its  proceedings.1 

Thus  by  military  force,  with  the  approbation  of  an  incon 
ceivably  small  proportion  of  the  people,  the  king  common- 
was  put  to  death,  the  ancient  fundamental  laws  wealth- 
were  overthrown,  and  a  mutilated  house  of  commons,  wherein 
very  seldom  more  than  seventy  or  eighty  sat,  was  invested 
with  the  supreme  authority.  So  little  countenance  had  these 
late  proceedings,  even  from  those  who  seemed  of  the  ruling 
faction,  that,  when  the  executive  council  of  state,  consisting 
of  forty-one,  had  been  nominated,  and  a  test  was  proposed  to 
them,  declaring  their  approbation  of  all  that  had  been  done 
about  the  king  and  the  kingly  office  and  about  the  house  of 
lords,  only  nineteen  would  subscribe  it,  though  there  were 
fourteen  regicides  on  the  list.2  It  was  agreed  at  length  that 
they  should  subscribe  it  only  as  to  the  future  proceedings  of 
the  commons.  With  such  dissatisfaction  at  head-quarters 
there  was  little  to  hope  from  the  body  of  the  nation.3  Hence, 
when  an  engagement  was  tendered  to  all  civil  officers  and 
beneficial  clergy,  containing  only  a  promise  to  live  faithful  to 
the  commonwealth,  as  it  was  established  without  a  king  or 
house  of  lords  (though  the  slightest  test  of  allegiance  that 
any  government  could  require),  it  was  taken  with  infinite  re 
luctance,  and,  in  fact,  refused  by  very  many,  the  presbyterian 

1  Whitelock,   396.      They  voted    that  out  two  of  the  former  list,  besides  those 

Pembroke,  as  well  as  Salisbury  and  How-  who   were    dead.      Whitelock.   411.      In 

ard  of  Escrick,  who  followed  the  ignomin-  1651  the  change  was  more  considerable, 

ious  example,  should    be  added    to  all  Id.  488. 

committees.  3  Six  judges   agreed  to  hold  on   their 

-  Commons' Journals.    Whitelock.     It  commissions  —  six  refused.      Whitelock, 

had  been  referred  to  a  committee  of  five  who  makes  a  poor  figure  at  this  time  on 

members.  Lisle,  Holland,  Robinson,  Scott,  his  own  showing,  consented  to  act  still  as 

and  Ludlow,  to  recommend  thirty-five  for  commissioner  of  the  great   seal.     Those 

a  council  of  state  ;  to  whose  nominations  who  remained  in  office  affected  to  stipu- 

the  house  agreed,  and  added  their  own.  late   that  the  fundamental    laws  should 

Ludlow.  i.  238.     They  were  appointed  for  not  be  abolished  ;  and  the  house  passed  a 

a  year;  but  in  1650  the  house  only  left  vote  to  this  effect.     Whitelock.  378 


228  SCHEMES   OF   CROMWELL.  CHAP.  X. 

ministers  especially  showing  a  determined  averseness  to  the 
new  republican  organization.1 

This,  however,  was 'established  (such  is  the  dominion  of 
the  sword)  far  beyond  the  control  of  any  national  sentiment. 
Thirty  thousand  veteran  soldiers  guaranteed  the  mock  parlia 
ment  they  had  permitted  to  reign.  The  sectaries,  a  numerous 
body,  and  still  more  active  than  numerous,  possessed,  under 
the  name  of  committees  for  various  purposes  appointed  by 
the  house  of  commons,  the  principal  local  authorities,  and 
restrained  by  a  vigilant  scrutiny  the  murmurs  of  a  disaffected 
majority.  Love,  an  eminent  presbyterian  minister,  lost  his 
head  for  a  conspiracy  by  the  sentence  of  a  high  court  of 
justice,  a  tribunal  that  superseded  trial  by  jury.2  His  death 
struck  horror  and  consternation  into  that  arrogant  priesthood 
who  had  begun  to  fancy  themselves  almost  beyond  the  scope 
of  criminal  law.  The  cavaliers  were  prostrate  in  the  dust, 
and,  anxious  to  retrieve  something  from  the  wreck  of  their 
long-sequestered  estates,  had  generally  little  appetite  to  embark 
afresh  in  a  hopeless  cause ;  besides  that  the  mutual  animos 
ities  between  their  party  and  the  presbyterians  were  still  too 
irreconcilable  to  admit  of  any  sincere  cooperation.  Hence 
neither  made  any  considerable  effort  in  behalf  of  Charles  on 
his  march,  or  rather  flight,  into  England :  a  measure,  indeed, 
too  palpably  desperate  for  prudent  men  who  had  learned 
the  strength  of  their  adversaries,  and  the  great  victory  of 
Worcester  consummated  the  triumph  of  the  infant  common 
wealth,  or  rather  of  its  future  master. 

A  train  of  favoring  events,  more  than  any  deep-laid  policy, 
Schemes  of  had  now  brought  sovereignty  within  the  reach  of 
Cromwell.  Cromwell.  His  first  schemes  of  ambition  may 
probably  have  extended  no  farther  than  a  title  and  estate, 
with  a  great  civil  and  military  command  in  the  king's  name. 
Power  had  fallen  into  his  hands  because  they  alone  were  fit 
to  wield  it ;  he  was  taught  by  every  succeeding  event  his 
own  undeniable  superiority  over  his  contemporaries  in  mar- 

1  Whitelock,  444,  et  alibi.  Baxter's  the  device  of  those  who  rule  in  revolu- 

Life,  64.  A  committee  was  appointed,  tions.  Clarendon  speaks,  on  the  contra- 

April,  1649,  to  inquire  about  ministers  ry,  of  Love's  execution  triumphantly, 

who  asperse  the  proceedings  of  parliament  He  had  been  distinguished  by  a  violent 

in  their  pulpits.  Whitelock,  395.  sermon  during  the  treaty  of  Uxbridge,  for 

-  State  Trials,  v.  43.  Baxter  says  that  which  the  parliament,  on  the  complaint 

Love's  death  hurt  the  new  commonwealth  of  the  king's  commissioners,  put  him  in 

more  than  would  be  easily  believed,  and  confinement.  Thurloe,  i.  65;  State  Trials, 

made  it  odious  to  all  the  religious  party  201.  Though  the  noble  historian,  as 

in  the  land,  except  the  sectaries.  Life  of  usual,  represents  this  otherwise.  He  also 

B.,  67.  But  "  oderiut  dum  metuant  "  is  misstates  Love's  dying  speech. 


COMMONWEALTH.        DISCOURSE   WITH  WHITELOCK.  229 

tial  renown,  in  civil  prudence,  in  decision  of  character,  and 
in  the  public  esteem  which  naturally  attached  to  these  quali 
ties.  Perhaps  it  was  not  till  after  the  battle  of  Worcester 
that  he  began  to  fix  his  thoughts,  if  not  on  the  dignity  of 
royalty,  yet  on  an  equivalent  right  of  command.  Two  re 
markable  conversations,  in  which  Whitelock  bore 
a  part,  seem  to  place  beyond  controversy  the  nature  versations 
of  his  designs.  About  the  end  of  1651,  Whitelock  ${Jtelock 
himself,  St.  John,  Widdrington,  Lenthall,  Harrison, 
Desborough,  Fleet-wood,  and  Whalley,  met  Cromwell,  at  his 
own  request,  to  consider  the  settlement  of  the  nation.  The 
four  former  were  in  favor  of  monarchy,  Whitelock  inclining 
to  Charles,  Widdrington  and  others  to  the  duke  of  Glouces 
ter  ;  Desborough  and  Whalley  were  against  a  single  person's 
government,  and  Flectwood  uncertain.  Cromwell,  who  had 
evidently  procured  this  conference  in  order  to  sift  the  inclina 
tions  of  so  many  leading  men,  and  to  give  some  intimation  of 
his  own,  broke  it  up  with  remarking  that,  if  it  might  be  done 
with  safety  and  preservation  of  their  rights  as  Englishmen 
and  Christians,  a  settlement  of  somewhat  with  monarchical 
power  in  it  would  be  very  effectual.1  The  observation  he 
here  made  of  a  disposition  among  the  lawyers  to  elect  the 
duke  of  Gloucester,  as  being  exempt  by  his  youth  from  the 
prepossessions  of  the  two  elder  brothers,  may,  perhaps,  have 
put  Cromwell  on  releasing  him  from  confinement,  and  send 
ing  him  to  join  his  family  beyond  sea.2 

Twelve  months  after  this  time,  in  a  more  confidential  dis 
course  with  Whitelock  alone,  the  general  took  occasion  to 
complain  both  of  the  chief  officers  of  the  army  and  of  the 
parliament ;  the  first,  as  inclined  to  factious  murmurings,  and 
the  second,  as  engrossing  all  offices  to  themselves,  divided 
into  parties,  delaying  business,  guilty  of  gross  injustice  and 
partiality,  and  designing  to  perpetuate  their  own  authority. 

1  Whitelock,  516.  idea  that  they  might  one  day  make  use 

2  The   parliament  had   resolved,  24th  of  him,  is  hard  to  say.     Clarendon  men- 
July,  1650,  that  Henry  Stuart,  son  of  the  tions  the  scheme  of  making  the  duke  of 
late  king,  and  the  lady  Elizabeth,  daugh-  Gloucester  king,  in  one  of  his  letters  (iii. 
ter  of  the  late  king,  be  removed  forthwith  38,  llth  Nov.  1651);   but  says,  "Truly  I 
beyond  the  seas  out  of  the  limits  of  this  do  believe  that  Cromwell  might  as  easily 
commonwealth.    Yet  this  intention  seems  procure  himself  to  be  chosen  king  as  the 
to  have  been  soon  changed ;  for  it  is  re-  duke  of  Gloucester  ;  for,  as  none  of  the 
solved,    Sept.   11,   to  give   the   duke  of  king's  party  would  assist  the  last,  so  I 
Gloucester   15(XM.    per    annum    for    his  am   persuaded    both    presbyterians   and 
maintenance  so  long  as  he  should  behave  independents   would   have  much  sooner 
himself  inoffensively.     Whether  this  pro-  the  former  than  any  of  the  race  of  him 
cueded  from,  liberality,  or  from  a  vague  whom  they  have  murthered." 


230  UNPOPULARITY  OF   THE  PARLIAMENT.      CHAP.  X. 

Whitelock,  confessing  part  of  this,  urged  that,  having  taken 
commissions  from  them  as  the  supreme  power,  it  would  be 
difficult  to  find  means  to  restrain  them.  "  What,"  said  Crom 
well,  "  if  a  man  should  take  upon  him  to  be  king  ?  "  "  I 
think,"  answered  Whitelock,  u  that  remedy  would  be  worse 
than  the  disease."  "  Why,"  rejoined  the  other,  "  do  you  think 
so?"  He  then  pointed  out  that  the  statute  of  Henry  VII. 
gave  a  security  to  those  who  acted  under  a  king  which  no 
other  government  could  furnish  ;  and  that  the  reverence  paid 
by  the  people  to  that  title  would  serve  to  curb  the  extrava 
gancies  of  those  now  in  power.  Whitelock  replied,  that  their 
friends  having  engaged  in  a  persuasion,  though  erroneous, 
that  their  rights  and  liberties  would  be  better  preserved 
under  a  commonwealth  than  a  monarchy,  this  state  of  the 
question  would  be  wholly  changed  by  Cromwell's  assumption 
of  the  title,  and  it  would  become  a  private  controversy  be 
tween  his  family  and  that  of  the  Stuarts.  Finally,  on  the 
other's  encouragement  to  speak  fully  his  thoughts,  he  told 
him  "  that  no  expedient  seemed  so  desirable  as  a  private 
treaty  with  the  king,  in  which  he  might  not  only  provide  for 
the  security  of  his  friends  and  the  greatness  of  his  family, 
but  set  limits  to  monarchical  power,  keeping  the  command  of 
the  militia  in  his  own  hands."  Cromwell  merely  said  "  that 
such  a  step  would  require  great  consideration  ; "  but  broke 
off  with  marks  of  displeasure,  and  consulted  Whitelock 
much  less  for  some  years  afterwards.1 

These  projects  of  usurpation  could  not  deceive  the  watch 
fulness  of  those  whom  Cromwell  pretended  to  serve.  He 
had  on  several  occasions  thrown  off  enough  of  his  habitual 
dissimulation  to  show  the  commonwealth's  men  that  he  was 
theirs  only  by  accident,  with  none  of  their  fondness  for  re- 
Unpopu-  publican  polity.  The  parliament  in  its  present 
larky  of  the  wreck  contained  few  leaders  of  superior  ability, 
parliament.  ^  a  natural  instinct  would  dictate  to  such  an 
assembly  the  distrust  of  a  popular  general,  even  if  there  had 
been  less  to  alarm  them  in  his  behavior.2  They  had  no 

1  Id.  p.  548.  Lord  Orrery  told  Burnet  certain,  however,  that  such  a  compromise 
that  he  had  once  mentioned  to  Cromwell  would  have  been  dishonorable  for  one 
a  report  that  he  was  to  bring  in  the  king,  party,  and  infamous  for  the  other, 
who  should  marry  his  daughter,  and  ob-  2  Cromwell,  in  his  letter  to  the  par- 
served  that  he  saw  no  better  expedient,  liament,  after  the  battle  of  Worcester, 
Cromwell,  without  expressing  any  dis-  called  it  a  crownins;  mercy.  This, 
pleasure,  said,  "  The  king  cannot  forgive  though  a  very  intelligible  expression, 
his  father's  blood,"  which  the  other  at-  was  taken  in  an  invidious  sense  by  the 
tempted  to  answer.  Buruet,  i.  95.  It  is  republicans. 


COMMONWEALTH.  STATE  OF  PARTIES.  231 

mean*,  however,  to  withstand  him.  The  creatures  themselves 
of  military  force,  their  pretensions  to  direct  or  control  the 
army  could  only  move  scorn  or  resentment.  Their  claim  to 
a  legal  authority,  and  to  the  name  of  representatives  of  a 
people  who  rejected  and  abhorred  them,  was  perfectly  impu 
dent.  When  the  house  was  fullest  their  numbers  did  not 
much  exceed  one  hundred  ;  but  the  ordinary  divisions,  even 
on  subjects  of  the  highest  moment,  show  an  attendance  of  but 
fifty  or  sixty  members.  They  had  retained  in  their  hands, 
notwithstanding  the  appointment  of  a  council  of  state,  most 
of  whom  were  from  their  own  body,  a  great  part  of  the  exec 
utive  government,  especially  the  disposal  of  offices.1  These 
they  largely  shared  among  themselves  or  their  dependants  ; 
and  in  many  of  their  votes  gave  occa>ion  to  such  charges  of 
injustice  and  partiality  as,  whether  true  or  false,  will  attach 
to  a  body  of  men  so  obviously  self-interested.'2  It  seems  to 
be  a  pretty  general  opinion  that  a  popular  assembly  is  still 
more  frequently  influenced  by  corrupt  and  dishonest  motives 
in  the  distribution  of  favors  or  the  decision  of  private  affairs 
than  a  ministry  of  state  ;  whether  it  be  that  it  is  more  prob 
able  that  a  man  of  disinterestedness  and  integrity  may  in  the 
course  of  events  rise  to  the  conduct  of  government  than  that 
such  virtues  should  belong  to  a  majority  ;  or  that  the  clandes 
tine  management  of  court  corruption  renders  it  less  scanda- 


l  Journals,  passim.  one  Josiah  Primatt.  who  seems  to  have 

-  One  of  their  most   scandalous   acts  been  connected  with  Lilburne,  Wildman, 

was   the    sale    of    the    earl   of    Craven's  and   the    levellers,   having    presented  A 

estate.      He    had   been    out   of  England  petition    complaining    that    sir    Arthur 

during  the  war,  and  could  not  therefore  Haslerig  had  violently  dispossessed  him 

be  reckoned  a  delinquent.     But  evidence  of  some  collieries,  the  house,  after  voting 

was  offered  that  he  had  seen  the  king  in  every  part  of  the   petition   to   be   false, 

Holland  ;  and  upon  this  charge,  though  adjudged  him  to  pay  a  fine  of  300CM.  to 

he  petitioned  to  be  heard,  and,  as  is  said,  the   commonwealth,   200(M.   to   Haslerig, 

indicted  the  informer  for  perjury,  where-  and   200W.    more    to    the   commissioners 

of  he  was  convicted,  they  voted  by  33  to  for  compositions.     Journals,    15th   Jan. 

31  that  his  lands  should  be  sold  ;    Has-  1(551-2.      There   had   been   a   project   of 

lerig,  the  most  savage  zealot  of  the  whole  erecting  an   university   at   Durham,   in 

faction,  being  a  teller  for  the  ayes,  Vane  favor    of  which    a    committee    reported 

for    the    noes.      Journals,    6th    March,  (18th  June,    1651),   and   for   which    the 

1651,  and  22d  June.  1652  ;  State  Trials,  chapter-lands  would  have  made  a  com- 

v.  323.     On  the  20th  of  July  in  the  same  petent   endowment.     Haslerig,   however, 

year  it  was  referred  to  a  committee  to  got  most  of  them  into  his  own  hands, 

select   thirty  delinquents  whose  estates  and   thus   frustrated,  perhaps,  a  design 

should  be  sold  for  the  use  of  the  navy,  of   great    importance   to   education   and 

Thus,  long  after   the  cessation   of  hos-  literature  in  this  country.     For  had  an 

tility,  the  royalists   continued  to  stand  university  once    been  established,    it   is 

in    jeopardy,    not    only   collectively   but  just   possible,    though    not   very    likely, 

personally,  from  this  arbitrary  and  vin-  that  the  estates  wrould  not  have  reverted, 

dictive  faction.     Nor  were  these  qualities  on  the  king's  restoration,  to  their  former, 

displayed    against   the   royalists    alone  ;  but  much  less  useful,  possessors. 


232  STATE  OF  PARTIES.          CHAP.  X. 

lous  and  more  easily  varnished  than  the  shamelessness  of  par 
liamentary  iniquity. 

The  republican  interest  in  the  nation  was  almost  wholly 
composed  of  two  parties,  both  offshoots  deriving  strength  from 
the  great  stock  of  the  army  ;  the  levellers,  of  whom  Lilburne 
and  Wildman  are  the  most  known,  and  the  anabaptists,  fifth- 
monarchy  men,  and  other  fanatical  sectaries,  headed  by  Har 
rison,  Hewson,  Overton,  and  a  great  number  of  officers. 
Though  the  sectaries  seemed  to  build  their  revolutionary 
schemes  more  on  their  own  religious  views  than  the  levellers, 
they  coincided  in  most  of  their  objects  and  demands.1  An 
equal  representation  of  the  people  in  short  parliaments,  an 
extensive  alteration  of  the  common  law,  the  abolition  of 
tithes,  and  indeed  of  all  regular  stipends  to  the  ministry,  a 
full  toleration  of  religious  worship,  were  reformations  which 
they  concurred  in  requiring  as  the  only  substantial  fruits 
of  their  arduous  struggle.2  Some  among  the  wilder  sects 
dreamed  of  overthrowing  all  civil  institutions.  These  factions 
were  not  without  friends  in  the  commons.  But  the  greater 
part  were  not  inclined  to  gratify  them  by  taking  away  the 
provision  of  the  church,  and  much  less  to  divest  themselves 
of  their  own  authority.  They  voted  indeed  that  tithes  should 
cease  as  soon  as  a  competent  maintenance  should  be  other 
wise  provided  for  the  clergy.3  They  appointed  a  commission 
to  consider  the  reformation  of  the  law,  in  consequence  of 
repeated  petitions  against  many  of  its  inconveniences  and 
abuses ;  who,  though  taxed  of  course  with  dilatoriness  by  the 
ardent  innovators,  suggested  many  useful  improvements,  sev- 

i  Mrs.  Hutchinson  speaks  very  favor-  pious,  and  public  spirit  which  they  pro- 

ably  of  the  levellers,   as  they  appeared  fessed,  owned    them  and  protected  them 

about  1647,    declaring  against   the   fac-  as  far  as  he  had  power.     These  were  they 

tions  of  the  presbyterians  and  indepen-  who  first  began  to  discover  the  ambition 

dents,  and  the  ambitious  views  of  tlieir  of  lieut.-gen.  Cromwell  and  his  idolaters, 

leaders,  and  especially  against  the  unrea-  and  to  suspect  and  dislike  it."     P.  285. 

sonable  privileges  claimed  by  the  houses  2  Whitelock,   399,   401.     The    levellers 

of  parliament  collectively  and  personally,  rose    in    arms    at    Banbury   and    other 

"  Indeed,  as  all  virtues  are  mediums  and  places,  but  were  soon  put  down,  chiefly 

have  their  extremes,  there  rose   up  after  through   the  energy   of  Cromwell,    and 

in  that   house  a  people  who  endeavored  their  ringleaders  shot, 

the  levelling  of  all  estates  and  qualities,  *  It  was  referred  to  a  committee,  29th 

which  those   sober  levellers   were    never  April,  1642,  to  consider  how  a  convenient 

guilty  of  desiring;  but  were  men  of  just  and  competent  maintenance  for  a  godly 

and  sober  principles,  of  honest  and  relig-  and  able  ministry  may  be  settled,  in  lieu 

ous   ends,  and  were  therefore  hated    by  of   tithes.      A   proposed    addition,    that 

all  the  designing  self-interested  men  of  tithes  be  paid  as  before,  till  such  main- 

both  factions.     Colonel  Hutchinson  had  tenance  be  settled,  was  carried  by  27  to 

a  great  intimacy  with  many  of  these ;  and  17. 
BO  far  as  they  acted  according  to  the  just, 


COMMONWEALTH.      FALL   OF   THE  LOXG  PARLIAMENT.         233 

era!  of  which  have  been  adopted  in  more  regular  times, 
though  with  too  cautious  delay.1  They  proceeded  rather 
slowly  and  reluctantly  to  frame  a  scheme  for  future  parlia 
ments  ;  and  resolved  that  they  should  consist  of  400,  to  be 
chosen  in  due  proportion  by  the  several  counties,  nearly  upon 
the  model  suggested  by  Lilburne,  and  afterwards  carried  into 
effect  by  Cromwell.2 

It  was  with  much  delay  and  difficulty,  amidst  the  loud 
murmurs  of  their  adherents,  that  they  could  be  r 
brought  to  any  vote  in  regard  to  their  own  dissolu 
tion.  It  passed  on  November  17, 1651,  after  some  very  close 
divisions,  that  they  should  cease  to  exist  as  a  parliament  on 
November  3,  1654.3  The  republicans  out  of  doors,  who 
deemed  annual,  or  at  least  biennial,  parliaments  essential  to 
their  definition  of  liberty,  were  indignant  at  so  unreasonable 
a  prolongation.  Thus  they  forfeited  the  good-will  of  the  only 
party  on  whom  they  could  have  relied.  Cromwell  dexterous 
ly  aggravated  their  faults  :  he  complained  of  their  delaying 
the  settlement  of  the  nation ;  he  persuaded  the  fanatics  of 
his  concurrence  in  their  own  schemes  ;  the  parliament,  in 
turn,  conspired  against  his  power,  and,  as  the  conspiracies  of 
so  many  can  never  be  secret,  let  it  be  seen  that  one  or  other 
must  be  destroyed  —  thus  giving  his  forcible  expulsion  of 
them  the  pretext  of  self-defence.  They  fell  with  no  regret, 
or  rather  with  much  joy  of  the  nation,  except  a  few  who 

1  Journals,  19th  Jan.  1652.     Hale  was  till  Oct.  llth,  when  the  committee  was 
the  first  named  on  this  commission,  and  ordered  to  meet  next  day,  and  so  de  die 
took  an  active  part;  but  he  was  associ-  in  diem,  and  to  give  an  account  thereof 
ated  with  some  furious  levellers,  Desbo-  to  the  house  on  Tuesday  come  fortnight; 
rough.  Tomlinson,  and  Hugh  Peters,  so  all  that  came   to   have   voices,  but  the 
that  it  is  hard  to  know  how  far  he  con-  special   care   thereof  commended  to  sir 
curred     in    the    alterations     suggested.  Henry  Vane,   colonel   Ludlow,    and    Mr. 
Many  of  them,   however,  seem  to  bear  Robinson.     We  find  nothing  further  till 
marks    of   his    hand.      Whitelock,    475,  Jan.    3d,  1650,  when    the   committee   is 
517,  519,  820  et   alibi.     There  had  been  ordered   to    make    its    report  the   next 
previously   a  committee    for    the    same  Wednesday.     This   is  done  accordingly, 
purpose  in  1650.     See  a  list  of  the  acts  Jan.  9,  when   sir  H.  Vane   reports    the 
prepared  by  them  in  Somers  Tracts,  vi.  resolutions   of    the    committee,    one   of 
177  ;  several  of  them  are  worthy  of  at-  which  was,  that  the  number   in  future 
tention.      Ludlow,   indeed,    blames    the  parliaments   should    be   400.      This   was 
commission  for  slowness  ;  but  their  delay  carried,   after    negativing    the    previous 
seems  to  have  been  very  justifiable,  and  question   in   a   committee  of  the  whole 
their  suggestions    highly   valuable.      It  house.      They    proceeded    several    days 
even  appears  that  they  drew  up  a  book  afterwards   on   the   same   business.     See 
containing    a    regular    digest    or    code,  also  Ludlow,  pp.  313,  435. 

which  was  ordered  to  be  printed.     Jour-        3  Two  divisions  had  taken  place.  Nov. 

nals.  20th  .Ian.  1653.  14  (the  first  on  the  previous  question), 

2  A  committee  was  named,  loth  May,  on  a  motion  that  it  is  convenient  to  de- 
1649.  to  take  into  consideration  the  set-  clare  a  certain  time  for  the  continuance 
tling  of  the  succession  of  future  parlia-  of  this  parliament.  50  to  46.  and  49  to  47. 
incut.*    and    regulating    their    elections.  On  the  last   division    Cromwell    and   St. 
Nothing  more  appears  to  have  been  done  John  were  tellers  for  the  ayes. 


234  THE   LITTLE   PARLIAMENT.  CIIAI>.  X. 

dreaded  more  from  the  alternative  of  military  usurpation  or 
anarchy  than  from  an  assembly  which  still  retained  the  names 
and  forms  so  precious  in  the  eyes  of  those  who  adhere  to  the 
ancient  institutions  of  their  country.1 

It  was  now  the  deep  policy  of  Cromwell  to  render  himself 
Little  par-  tne  so^e  refuge  of  those  who  valued  the  laws,  or 
liameut.  the  regular  ecclesiastical  ministry,  or  their  own 
estates,  all  in  peril  from  the  mad  enthusiasts  who  were  in 
hopes  to  prevail.2  These  lie  had  admitted  into  that  motley 
convention  of  one  hundred  and  twenty  persons,  sometimes 
called  Barebone's  parliament,  but  more  commonly  the  little 
parliament,  on  whom  his  council  of  officers  pre- 

Instrument       L  .  L 

of  govern-  tended  to  devolve  the  government,  mingling  them 
with  a  sufficient  proportion  of  a  superior  class 
whom  he  could  direct.3  This  assembly  took  care  to  avoid 
the  censure  which  their  predecessors  had  incurred,  by  pass 
ing  a  good  many  bills,  and  applying  themselves  with  a 
vigorous  hand  to  the  reformation  of  what  their  party  deemed 
the  most  essential  grievances,  those  of  the  law  and  of  the 
church.  They  voted  the  abolition  of  the  court  of  chancery, 
a  measure  provoked  by  its  insufferable  delay,  its  engrossing 

1  Whitelock   was   one  of  these  ;    and,  and  possess  it."     Ludlow  argued  against 
being  at   that   time   out   of   Cromwell's  him  ;  but  what  was  argument  to  such  a 
favor,   inveighs    much  against  this   de-  head?     Mem.    of  Ludlow,    p.  565.      Not 
structiou  of  the  power  from  which   he  many  months  after,   Cromwell  sent   hia 
had  taken  his  commission.     P.  552,  554.  coadjutor  to  Carishrook  castle. 

St.  John  appears  to  have  concurred  in  ;i  Hume  speaks  of  this  assembly  as 
the  measure.  In  fact  there  had  so  long  chiefly  composed  of  the  lowest  mechanics, 
been  an  end  of  law  that  one  usurpation  But  this  was  not  the  case.  Some  persons 
might  seem  as  rightful  as  another.  But  of  inferior  rank  there  were,  but  a  large 
while  any  house  of  commons  remained  proportion  of  the  members  were  men  of 
there  was  a  stock  left  from  which  the  an-  good  family,  or,  at  least,  military  distinc- 
cient  constitution  might  possibly  germi-  tion,  as  the  list  of  the  names  in  the  Par- 
nate.  Mrs.  Macaulay,  whose  lamenta-  liamentary  History  is  sufficient  to  prove; 
tions  over  the  Rump  did  not  certainly  and  Whitelock  remarks,  "  It  was  much 
proceed  from  this  cause,  thus  vents  her  wondered  at  by  some  that  these  gentle- 
wrath  on  the  English  nation:  ''An  ac-  men,  many  of  them  being  persons  of 
quiescence  thus  universal  in  the  insult  fortune  and  knowledge,  would  at  this 
committed  on  the  guardians  of  the  infant  summons,  and  from  those  hands,  take 
republic,  and  the  first  step  towards  the  upon  them  the  supreme  authority  of  this 
usurpation  of  Cromwell,  fixes  an  indelible  nation."  P.  559.  With  respect  to  this,  it 
stain  on  the  character  of  the  English,  as  may  be  observed  that  those  who  have 
a  people  basely  and  incorrigibly  attached  lived  in  revolutions  find  it  almost  neces- 
to  the  sovereignty  of  individuals,  and  of  sary.  whether  their  own  interests  or  those 
natures  too  ignoble  to  endure  an  empire  of  their  country  are  their  aim,  to  comply 
of  equal  laws."  Vol.  v.  p.  112.  with  all  changes,  and  take  a  greater  part 

2  Harrison,  when   Ludlow   asked   him  in  supporting  them  than  men  of  inflex- 
why  he  had  joined  Cromwell  to  turnout  ible    consciences    can    approve.     No  one 
the  parliament,  said,  he  thought  Crom-  felt  this  more   than  Whitelock  ;  and  his 
well  would  own  and  favor  a  set  of  men  remark  in  this  place  is  a  satire  upon  all 
who  acted  on  higher  principles  than  those  his  conduct.     He  was  at  the  moment  dis- 
of  civil  liberty;  and  quoted  from  Daniel,  satisfied,  and  out  of  Cromwell's  favor,  but 
'•  that  the  saints  shall  take  the  kingdom  lost  no  time  in  regaining  it. 


COMMONWEALTH.       CROMWELL  PROTECTOR.  235 

of  almost  all  suits,  and  the  uncertainty  of  its  decisions.  They 
appointed  a  committee  to  consider  of  a  new  body  of  the  law, 
without  naming  any  lawyer  upon  it.1  They  nominated  a 
set  of  commissioners  to  preside  in  courts  of  justice,  among 
whom  they  with  difficulty  admitted  two  of  that  profession  ; 2 
they  irritated  the  clergy  by  enacting  that  marriages  should 
be  solemnized  before  justices  of  the  peace  ; 3  they  alarmed 
them  still  more  by  manifesting  a  determination  to  take  away 
their  tithes,  without  security  for  an  equivalent  maintenance.4 
Thus,  having  united  against  itself  these  two  powerful  bodies, 
whom  neither  kings  nor  parliaments  in  England  have  in 
general  offended  with  impunity,  this  little  synod  of  legislators 
was  ripe  for  destruction.  Their  last  vote  was  to  negative  a 
report  of  their  own  committee,  recommending  that  such  as 
should  be  approved  as  preachers  of  the  gospel  should  enjoy 
the  maintenance  already  settled  by  law  ;  and  that  the  pay 
ment  of  tithes,  as  a  just  property,  should  be  enforced  by  the 
magistrates.  The  house  having,  by  the  majority  of  two,  dis 
agreed  with  this  report,5  the  speaker,  two  days  after,  having 
secured  a  majority  of  those  present,  proposed  the  surrender 
of  their  power  into  the  hands  of  Cromwell,  who  put  an  end 
to  the  opposition  of  the  rest  by  turning  them  out  of  doors. 

It  can  admit  of  no  doubt  that  the  despotism  of  a  wise  man 
is  more  tolerable  than  that  of  political  or  religious  fanatics ; 
and  it  rarely  happens  that  there  is  any  better  remedy  in 
revolutions  which  have  given  the  latter  an  ascendant.  Crom 
well's  assumption,  therefore,  of  the  title  of  protector  was  a 
necessary  and  wholesome  usurpation,  however  he  may  have 

l  Journals.  August  19.  This  was  car-  mission  for  amendment  of  the  law  ap- 
ried  by  46  to  38  against  Cromwell's  party  pointed  in  the  long  parliament.  The  great 
Yet  Cromwell,  two  years  afterwards,  pub-  number  of  dissenters  from  the  established 
lished  an  ordinance  for  regulating  and  religion  rendered  it  a  very  reasonable 
limiting  the  jurisdiction  of  chancery,  measure, 
which  offended  \Vhitelock  so  much  that  *  Thurloe,  i.  369;  iii.  132. 
he  resigned  the  great  seal,  not  having  5  Journals.  2d  and  10th  Dec.  1653. 
been  consulted  in  framing  the  regula-  Whitelock.  See  the  sixth  volume  of  the 
tions.  This  is  a  rare  instance  in  his  life  ;  Somers  Tracts  (p.  266)  for  a  long  and 
and  he  vaunts  much  of  his  conscience  rather  able  vindication  of  this  parliament 
accordingly,  but  thankfully  accepted  the  by  one  of  its  members.  Ludlow  also 
office  of  commissioner  of  the  treasury  in-  speaks  pretty  well  of  it,  p.  471;  and 
stead.  P.  621,  625.  He  does  not  seem,  says  truly  enough  that  Cromwell  fright- 
by  his  own  account,  to  have  given  much  eued  the  lawyers  and  clergy,  by  showing 
satisfaction  to  suitors  in  equity  (p.  548);  what  the  parliament  meant  to  do  with 
yet  the  fault  may  have  been  theirs,  or  them,  which  made  them  in  a  hurry  to 
the  system's.  have  it  destroyed.  See  also  Parl.  Hist. 

2  4th  October.  1412,  1414. 

a  This  had  been  proposed  by  the  com- 


236  MODE  OF  HIS   ASCENT.  CHAP.  X. 

caused  the  necessity  ;  it  secured  the  nation  from  the  mischiev 
ous  lunacy  of  the  anabaptists,  and  from  the  more  cool-blooded 
tyranny  of  that  little  oligarchy  which  arrogated  to  itself  the 
name  of  commonwealth's  men.  Though  a  gross  and  glaring 
evidence  of  the  omnipotence  of  the  army,  the  instrument 
under  which  he  took  his  title  accorded  to  him  no  unnecessary 
executive  authority.  The  sovereignty  still  resided  in  the 
parliament ;  he  had  no  negative  voice  on  their  laws.  Until 
the  meeting  of  the  next  parliament  a  power  was  given  him 
of  making  temporary  ordinances ;  but  this  was  not,  as  Hume, 
on  the  authority  of  Clarendon  and  Warwick,  has  supposed, 
and  as  his  conduct,  if  that  were  any  proof  of  the  law,  might 
lead  us  to  infer,  designed  to  exist  in  future  intervals  of  the 
legislature.1  It  would  be  scarcely  worth  while,  however,  to 
pay  much  attention  to  a  form  of  government  which  was  so 
little  regarded,  except  as  it  marks  the  jealousy  of  royal 
power,  which  those  most  attached  to  Cromwell,  and  least 
capable  of  any  proper  notions  of  liberty,  continued  to  enter 
tain. 

In  the  ascent  of  this  bold  usurper  to  greatness  he  had  suc 
cessively  employed  and  thrown  away  several  of  the  power 
ful  factions  who  distracted  the  nation.  He  had  encouraged 
the  levellers  and  persecuted  them;  he  had  flattered  the  long 
parliament  and  betrayed  it ;  he  had  made  use  of  the  secta 
ries  to  crush  the  commonwealth  ;  he  had  spurned  the  secta 
ries  in  his  last  advance  to  power.  These,  with  the  royalists 
and  the  presbyterians,  forming  in  effect  the  whole  people, 
though  too  disunited  for  such  a  coalition  as  must  have  over 
thrown  him,  were  the  perpetual,  irreconcilable  enemies  of  his 
administration.  Master  of  his  army,  which  he  well  knew 
how  to  manage,  surrounded  by  a  few  deep  and  experienced 
counsellors,  furnished  by  his  spies  with  the  completest  intelli 
gence  of  all  designs  against  him,  he  had  no  great  cause  of 

l  See   the  instrument  of   government  before  (id.  591),  besides  many  other  ordi- 

in  Whitelock,  p.  571 ;  or  Somers  Tracts,  nances  of  a  legislative  nature.     '•  I  am 

vi.  257.     Ludlow  says  that  some  of  the  very   glad,"  says   Fleetwood  (Feb.  1655, 

officers  opposed  this  ;  but  Lambert  forced  Thurloe,  iii.  183),  "  to  hear  his  highness 

it  down  their  throats  :  p.  276.     Cromwell  has  declined  the  legislative  power,  which 

made  good  use  of  this  temporary  power,  by  the  instrument  of  government,  in  my 

The  union  of  Scotland  with  England  was  opinion,  he  could  not  exercise  after  this 

by   one  of    these  ordinances,   April    12  last  parliament's  meeting."  And  the  par- 

( Whitelock,   586);    and   he  imposed  an  liament  of  1656.  at  the  protector's  desire, 

assessment  of  120.000/.  monthly,  for  three  confirmed  all  ordinances  made  since  the 

months,  and  90,0(XM.  for  the  next  three,  dissolution  of  the  long  parliament.   Thur- 

instead  of  70,0002.  which  had  been  paid  loe,  vi.  243. 


COMMONWEALTH.     PARLIAMENT  CALLED  BY  CROMWELL.      237 

alarm  from  open  resistance.     But  he  was  bound  by  the  in 
strument  of  government  to  call  a  parliament ;  and  pariianient 
in  any  parliament  his  adversaries  must  be  formi-  called  by 

-iiiiT          i  i    •        i        i        i  i'ii  Cromwell. 

dable.  He  adopted  m  both  those  which  he  sum 
moned  the  reformed  model  already  determined  ;  limiting  the 
number  of  representatives  to  400,  to  be  chosen  partly  in  the 
counties,  according  to  their  wealth  or  supposed  population,  by 
electors  possessing  either  freeholds  or  any  real  or  movable 
property  to  the  value  of  200/.  ;  partly  by  the  more  considera 
ble  boroughs,  in  whose  various  rights  of  election  no  change 
appeal's  to  have  been  made.1  This  alteration,  comformable 
to  the  equalizing  principles  of  the  age,  did  not  produce  so 
considerable  a  difference  in  the  persons  returned  as  it  per 
haps  might  at  present.2  The  court  party,  as  those  subservi 
ent  to  him  were  called,  were  powerful  through  the  subjection 
of  the  electors  to  the  army.  But  they  were  not  able  to  ex 
clude  the  presbyterian  and  republican  interests  ;  the  latter, 
headed  by  Bradshaw,  Haslerig,  and  Scott,  eager  to  thwart 
the  power  which  they  were  compelled  to  obey.3  Hence  they 
began  by  taking  into  consideration  the  whole  instrument  of 
government ;  and  even  resolved  themselves  into  a  committee 
to  debate  its  leading  article,  the  protector's  authority.  Crom 
well,  his  supporters  having  lost  this  question  on  a  division  of 
141  to  loG,  thought  it  time  to  interfere.  He  gave  them  to 
understand  that  the  government  by  a  single  person  and  a 
parliament  wras  a  fundamental  principle,  not  subject  to  their 
discussion  ;  and  obliged  every  member  to  a  recognition  of  it, 
solemnly  promising  neither  to  attempt  nor  to  concur  in  any 
alteration  of  that  article.4  The  commons  voted,  however, 
that  this  recognition  should  not  extend  to  the  entire  instru 
ment,  consisting  of  forty-two  articles  ;  and  went  DissolTe(1 
on  to  discuss  them  with  such  heat  and  prolixity  byiiim. 

i  I  infer  this  from  the  report  of  a  com-  judge  what   the   authority   of  the   lord 

mittee  of  privileges   on   the  election   for  protector    will    be    in    this    parliament. 

Lynn,  Oct.  20. 1(556.     See  also  Journals,  However  it  was  observed  that,  as  often 

Nov.  26,  1654.  as  he  spoke  in  his  speech  of  liberty  or 

"  It  is  remarkable  that  Clarendon  religion,  the  members  did  seem  to  rejoice 
seems  to  approve  this  model  of  a  parlia-  with  acclamations  of  joy."  Thurloe.  v. 
ment,  saying,  "it  was  then  generally  588.  But  the  election  of  Lenthall  appeai-s 
looked  upon  as  an  alteration  fit  to  be  by  Guibbon  Goddard's  Journal,  lately 
more  warrantably  made,  and  in  a  better  published  in  the  Introduction  to  Bur- 
time."  ton's  Diary,  to  have  been  unanimous. 

*  Bourdeaux,  the  French  ambassador,  *  Journals,  14th  and  18th  Sept.     Parl. 

says,  "Some  were  for  Bradshaw  as  speak-  Hist.    1445.    1459.     Whitelock,   605,   &c. 

er,  but  the  protector's  party  carried  it  Ludlow,  499.     Goddard;s  Journal,  32. 
for  Leuthall.     By  this  beginning  one  may 


238  ROYALIST   INTRIGUES.  CHAP.  X. 

that,  after  five  months,  the  limited  term  of  their  session,  the 
protector,  having  obtained  the  ratification  of  his  new  scheme 
neither  so  fully  nor  so  willingly  as  he  desired,  particularly 
having  been  disappointed  by  the  great  majority  of  200  to  GO, 
which  voted  the  protectorate  to  be  elective,  not  hereditary, 
dissolved  the  parliament  with  no  small  marks  of  dissatisfac 
tion.1 

The  banished  king,  meanwhile,  began  to  recover  a  little  of 
intrigues  of  tliat  political  importance  which  the  battle  of  Wor- 
the  king  and  ccster  had  seemed  almost  to  extinguish.  So  ill-sup- 
iis  part}.  p0rteii  \)y  his  English  adherents  on  that  occasion  so 
incapable,  with  a  better  army  than  he  had  any  prospect  of  ever 
raising  again,  to  make  a  stand  against  the  genius  and  fortune  of 
the  usurper,  it  was  vain  to  expect  that  he  could  be  restored 
by  any  domestic  insurrection,  until  the  disunion  of  the  pre 
vailing  factions  should  offer  some  more  favorable  opportu 
nity.  But  this  was  too  distant  a  prospect  for  his  court  of 
starving  followers.  He  had  from  the  beginning  looked  around 
for  foreign  assistance.  But  France  was  distracted  by  her  own 
troubles ;  Spain  deemed  it  better  policy  to  cultivate  the  new 
commonwealth  ;  and  even  Holland,  though  engaged  in  a  dan 
gerous  war  with  England,  did  not  think  it  worth  while  to 
accept  his  offer  of  joining  her  fieet,  in  order  to  try  his  influ 
ence  with  the  English  seamen.2  Totally  unscrupulous  as  to 
the  means  by  which  he  might  reign,  even  at  the  moment  that 

i  This  division  is  not  recorded  in  the  calendar.  Hume  has  adopted  this  no- 
Journals,  in  consequence.  I  suppose,  of  tion ;  but  it  is  groundless,  the  month  in. 
its  having  been  resolved  in  a  committee  law  being  always  of  twenty -eight  days, 
of  the  whole  house.  But  it  is  impossible  unless  the  contrary  be  expressed.  Wliite- 
to  doubt  the  fact,  which  is  referred  to,  lock  says  that  Cromwell's  dissolution  of 
Oct.  19,  by  a  letter  of  Bourdeaux,  the  the  parliament,  because  he  found  them 
French  ambassador  (Thurloe,  ii.  681),  not  so  pliable  to  his  purposes  as  he  ex- 
who  observes,  "  Hereby  it  is  easily  dis-  pected,  caused  much  discontent  in  them 
cerned  that  the  nation  is  nowise  affected  and  others  ;  but  that  he  valued  it  not, 
to  his  family,  nor  much  to  himself,  esteeming  himself  above  those  things  :  p. 
Without  doubt  he  will  strengthen  his  618.  He  gave  out  that  the  parliament 
army,  and  keep  that  in  a  good  posture.''  were  concerned  in  the  conspiracy  to 
It  is  also  alluded  to  by  Whitelock,  609.  bring  in  the  king. 

They  resolved  to  keep  the  militia  in  the        2  Exiles   are    seldom    scrupulous  :   we 

power  of  the  parliament,  and  that  the  find  that  Charles  was  willing  to  propose 

protector's  negative  should  extend  only  to  the  States,  in  return  for  their  acknowl- 

to  such  bills  as   might  alter  the  instru-  edging    his    title,     ''  such    present    and 

ment;  and  in  other  cases,  if  he  did  not  lasting  advantages  to  them  by  this  alli- 

pass  bills  within  twenty  days,  they  were  ance  as  may  appear  most  considerable  to 

to    become    laws    without    his    consent,  that  nation  and  to  their  posterity,  and  a 

Journals,  Nov.  10. 1654.    Whitelock,  608  valuable  compensation  for  whatever  pres- 

This  was   carried  against  the  court  by  ent  advantages  the  king  can  receive   by 

109  to   85.     Ludlow  insinuates  that  this  it."      Clarendon    State    Papers,   iii.    90. 

parliament  did  not  sit  out  its  legal  term  These  intrigues  would  have  justly  made 

of  five  months  :  Cromwell  having  inter-  him  odious  in  England, 
preted  the  mouths  to  be  lunar  instead  of 


COMMONWEALTH.         ROYALIST   INTRIGUES.  239 

he  was  treating  to  become  the  covenanted  king  of  Scotland, 
with  every  solemn  renunciation  of  popery,  Charles  had  re 
course  to  a  very  delicate  negotiation,  which  deserves  remark, 
as  having  led,  after  a  long  course  of  time,  but  by  gradual 
steps,  to  the  final  downfall  of  his  family.  With  the  advice 
of  Ormond,  and  with  the  concurrence  of  Hvde,  he  attempted 
to  interest  the  pope  (Innocent  X.)  on  his  side,  as  the  most 
powerful  intercessor  with  the  catholic  princes  of  Europe.1 
For  this  purpose  it  was  necessary  to  promise  toleration  at 
least  to  the  catholics.  The  king's  ambassadors  to  Spain  in 
1050,  Cottington  and  Hyde,  and  other  agents  despatched  to 
Rome  at  the  same  time,  were  empowered  to  offer  an  entire* 
repeal  of  the  penal  laws.'2  The  king  himself,  some  time 
afterwards,  wrote  a  letter  to  the  pope,  wherein  he  repeated 
this  assurance.  That  court,  however,  well  aware  of  the 
hereditary  duplicity  of  the  Stuarts,  received  his  overtures 
with  haughtv  contempt.  The  pope  returned  no  answer  to 
the  king's  letter;  but  one  was  received  after  many  months 
from  the  general  of  the  Jesuits,  requiring  that  Charles  should 
declare  himself  a  catholic,  since  the  goods  of  the  church 
could  not  be  lavished  for  the  support  of  an  heretical  prince.3 
Even  after  this  insolent  refusal,  the  wretched  exiles  still 
clung  at  times  to  the  vain  hope  of  succor  which  as  protes- 
tants  and  Englishmen  they  could  not  honorably  demand.4 
But  many  of  them  remarked  too  clearly  the  conditions  on 
which  assistance  might  be  obtained  ;  the  court  of  Charles, 
openly  or  in  secret,  began  to  pass  over  to  the  catholic  church; 
and  the  contagion  soon  spread  to  the  highest  places. 

1  Oriuond  wrote  strongly  to  this  effect,  have  been  made  in  the  prejudice  of  cath- 
after  the  battle  of  \Vorcester,  convinced  olies,  and  to  put  them  into  the  same  con- 
that  nothing  but  foreign  assistance  could  dition  as  his  other  subjects."  Cottington 
restore  tlie  king.  "  Amongst  protestants  to  Father  Bapthorpe.  Id.  541.  These  ne- 
there  is  none  that  hath  the  power,  and  gotiations  with  Rome  were  soon  known  ; 
amongst  the  catholics  it  is  visible.''-  and  a  tract  was  published,  by  the  parlia- 
Carte's  Letters,  i.  461.  ineiit's  authority,  containing  the  docu- 

-  Clarendon  State    Papers,    ii.   481,  et  ments.      Notwithstanding    the   delirium 

eaepe  alibi.     The  protestant  zeal  of  Hyde  of  the   Restoration,    this   had  made    an 

had  surely  deserted  him  ;  and  his  veracity  impression    which    was    not    afterwards 

in  one  letter  give  way  also  :  see  vol.  iii.  effaced. 

p.  15S.  Hut  the  great  criminality  of  all  a  Clarendon  State  Papers,  iii.  181. 
these  negotiations  lay  in  this,  that  4  "The  pope  very  well  knows,''  says 
Charles  was  by  them  soliciting  such  a  Hyde  to  Clement,  an  agent  at  the  court 
measure  of  foreign  aid  as  would  make  of  Home,  2d  April,  1056,  "  how  far  the 
him  at  once  the  tyrant  of  England  and  king  is  from  thoughts  of  severity  against 
the  vassal  of  Spain ;  since  no  free  parlia-  his  catholic  subjects;  nay,  that  he  doth 
ment,  however  royalist,  was  likely  to  re-  desire  to  put  them  into  the  same  con- 
pea  1  all  the  laws  against  popery.  "That  dition  with  his  other  subjects,  and  that 
which  the  king  will  be  ready  and  willing  no  man  shall  suffer  in  any  consideration 
to  do  i-<  to  give  his  consent  for  the  repeal  for  being  a  Roman  catholic."  Id.  2Ul. 
of  all  the  penal  laws  and  statutes  wnich  . 


240  ROYALIST   INTRIGUES.  CHAP.  X. 

In  the  year  1654  the  royalist  intrigues  in  England  began 
to  grow  more  active  and  formidable  through  the  accession 
of  many  discontented  republicans.1  Though  there  could  be 
no  coalition,  properly  speaking,  between  such  irreconcilable 
factions,  they  came  into  a  sort  of  tacit  agreement,  as  is  not 
unusual,  to  act  in  concert  for  the  only  purpose  they  enter 
tained  alike,  the  destruction  of  their  common  enemy.  Major 
Wildman,  a  name  not  very  familiar  to  the  general  reader, 
but  which  occurs  perpetually,  for  almost  half  a  century, 
when  we  look  into  more  secret  history,  one  of  tho.se  dark 
and  restless  spirits  who  delight  in  the  deep  game  of  con 
spiracy  against  every  government,  seems  to  have  been  the 
first  mover  of  this  unnatural  combination.  He  had  been 
early  engaged  in  the  schemes  of  the  levellers,  and  was  ex 
posed  to  the  jealous  observation  of  the  ruling  powers.  It 
appears  most  probable  that  his  views  were  to  establish  a 
commonwealth,  and  to  make  the  royalists  his  dupes.  In 
his  correspondence,  however,  with  Brussels,  he  engaged  to 
restore  the  king.  Both  parties  were  to  rise  in  arms  against 
the  new  tyranny ;  and  the  nation's  temper  was  tried  by  clan 
destine  intrigues  in  almost  every  county.2  Greater  reliance 
however  was  placed  on  the  project  of  assassinating  Crom 
well.  Neither  party  were  by  any  means  scrupulous  on  this 
score  :  if  we  have  not  positive  evidence  of  Charles's  concur 
rence  in  this  scheme,  it  would  be  preposterous  to  suppose 
that  he  would  have  been  withheld  by  any  moral  hesitation. 
It  is  frequently  mentioned  without  any  disapprobation  by  Clar 
endon  in  his  private  letters  ; 3  and,  as  the  royalists  certainly 
justified  the  murders  of  Ascham  and  Dorislaus,  they  could 
not  in  common  sense  or  consistency  have  scrupled  one  so 
incomparably  more  capable  of  defence.4  A  Mr.  Gerard  suf- 

l  Clarendon's  History  of  the  Rebellion,  3  p.  315^  324,  343.    Thurloe,  i.  360.  510. 

b.   14.      State   Papers,  iii.  265,  300,  &c.  In  the  same  volume  (p.  248)  we  find  even 

Whitelock  observes  at  this  time, '•  Many  a   declaration  from    the    king,   dated  at 

sober  and  faithful  patriots  did   begin  to  Paris,  3d.  May,  1654,  offering    500/.   per 

incline  to  the  king's  restoration  ;  "    and.  annum  to  any  one  who  should  kill  Orom- 

hiuts   that   this    was  his  opinion,  which  well,  and  pardon  to  any  one  who  should, 

excited    Cromwell's     jealousy    of     him.  leave  that  party,  except  Bradshaw,  Leii- 

P.  620.  thall,  and  Haslerig.     But  this  seems  un- 

•-'  Clarendon's  History,  vih  129.     State  likely   to    be  authentic :    Charles  would 

Papers,  iii.  265,  &c.    These  levellers  were  not  have  avowed  a  design  of  assassina- 

very  hostile  to  the  interference  of  Hyde  tion   so   openly  :    and  it  is  strange  that 

and  Ormond,  judging  them  too  inflexibly  Lenthall    and    Haslerig,    especially    the 

attached  to  the  ancient  constitution  ;  but  former,  should   be  thus  exempted   from 

this    hostility     recommended     them    to  pardon,  rather  than  so  many  regicides, 

others  of  the  banished  king's  court  who  4  See  what  Clarendon  says  of  Ascham's 

showed  the  same  sentiments.  death,  State  Papers,  ii.  542.     In  another 


COMMONWEALTH.      MEASURES   OF   CROMWELL.  241 

fered  death  for  one  of  these  plots  to  kill  Cromwell ;  justly 
sentenced,  though  by  an  illegal  tribunal.1 

In   the  year   1655,  Penruddock,   a  Wiltshire   gentleman, 
with  a  very  trifling  force,  entered  Salisbury  at  the 
time  of  the  assizes  ;  and,  declaring  for  the  king,  [SJec~ 
seized  the  Judge  and  the  sheriff.2     This  little  re-  P°.^g?ent8 
bellion,  meeting  with  no  resistance  from  the  peo 
ple,   but  a   supineness   equally  fatal,  was   soon   quelled.     It 
roused  Cromwell  to  secure  himself  by  an  unprecedented  ex 
ercise  of  power.     In  possession  of  all  the  secrets  of  his  ene 
mies,  he  knew  that  want  of  concert  or  courage  had  alone 
prevented  a  general  rising,  towards  which  indeed  there  had 
been   some  movements   in  the   midland   counties.3     He  was 
aware  of  his  own  unpopularity,  and  the  national  bias  tow 
ards  the  exiled  king.     Juries  did  not  willingly  convict  the 
sharers  in  Penruddock's  rebellion.4     To  govern  according  to 
law  may  sometimes  be  an  usurper's  wish,  but  can  seldom  be 
in  his  power.     The  protector  abandoned  all   thought  of  it. 
Dividing  the  kingdom  into  districts,  he  placed  at  Rigorous 
the   head   of   each  a  major-general  as   a   sort  of  measures  of 
military  magistrate,  responsible  for  the  subjection  Cl 
of  his  prefecture.     These  were  eleven  in  number,  men  bit 
terly  hostile  to  the  royalist  party,  and  insolent  towards  all 
civil  authority.5     They  were  employed  to  secure   the    pay- 
place  he  observes,  —  u  It  is  a  worse  and  a    of   the  royalist  schemes.     The  "  sealed 
baser  thing  that  any  man  should  appear     knot"  of  the  king's  friends  iu  London 
in  any  part  beyoTid  sea  under  the  charac-    is  mentioned  as  frequently  as  we  find  it 
ter  of  an  agent  from  the  rebels,  and  not    in   the   Clarendon    Papers   at   the   same 
have  his  throat  cut."     Id.  iii.  144.  time. 

1  State  Trials,  518.      Thurloe,    ii.  416.         *  Thurloe,  iii.  371,  &c.     "Penruddock 
Some  of  the  malecontent  commonwealth-    and   Grove. ;!   Ludlow  says,  "could   not 
men  were  also  eager  to  get  rid  of  Crom-     have  been  justly  condemned,  if  they  had 
well  by  assassination  :  Wildman.  Saxby,     as  sure  a  foundation  in  what   they  de- 
Titus.  Syndercome's  story  is  well  known:     clared  for,  as  what  they  declared  against. 
he  was  connected  in  the  conspiracy  with    But  certainly  it  can   never  be  esteemed 
those  already  mentioned.      The    famous     by  a  wise  man  to  be  worth  the  scratch  of 
pamphlet    by  Titus,  Killing  no  Murder,     a  finger  to  remove  a  single  person  acting 
was    printed  in   1657.      Clarendon    State     by  au  arbitrary  power,  in   order  to  set 
Papers,  315,  324,  343.  up    another  with    the    same    unlimited 

2  A  very  reprehensible  passage  occurs    authority:  "  p.  518.     This  is  a  just  and 
in  Clarendon's  account  of  this  transaction,     manly  sentiment.     Woe  to  those  who  do 
vol.  vii.  p.  140;    where    he    blames   and    not  recognize  it  !     But  is  it  fair  to  say 
derides    the  insurgents  for  not   putting     that  the  royalists  were  contending  to  set 
chief-justice  Kolle  and  others    to    death,     up  an  unlimited  authority  ? 

which  would  have  been  a  detestable  and  5  They  were  originally  ten,    Lambert, 

useless  murder.  Desborough.  Whalley,  Goffe.  Fleetwood, 

3  Whitelock,  618,  620.      Ludlow,    513.  Skippon,  Kelsey,  Butler.  Worseley.  and 
Thurloe,  iii.  264,  and  through  more  than  Berry.      Thurloe,    iii.    701.      Barkstead 
half  the  volume,   passim.     In   the   pre-  was    afterwards    added.      "  The    major- 
ceding  volume  we  have  abundant  proofs  generals/'  says  Ludlow,  '•  carried  things 
how    completely   master    Cromwell    was  with  unheard-of  insolence  in  their  several 

VOL.    II.  16 


242  ARBITRARY   GOVERNMENT  CHAP.  X. 

ment  of  a  tax  of  ten  per  cent.,  imposed  by  Cromwell's 
arbitrary  will  on  those  who  had  ever  sided  with  the  king 
during  the  late  wars,  where  their  estates  exceeded  100/.  per 
annum.  The  major-generals,  in  their  correspondence  printed 
among  Thurloe's  papers,  display  a  rapacity  anc^  oppression 
beyond  their  master's.  They  complain  that  the  number  of 
those  exempted  is  too  great ;  they  press  for  harsher  meas 
ures  ;  they  incline  to  the  unfavorable  construction  in  every 
doubtful  case  ;  they  dwell  on  the  growth  of  malignancy  and 
the  general  disaffection.1  It  was  not  indeed  likely  to  be 
mitigated  by  this  unparalleled  tyranny.  All  illusion  was 
now  gone  as  to  the  pretended  benefits  of  the  civil  war.  It 
had  ended  in  a  despotism,  compared  to  which  all  the  illegal 
practices  of  former  kings,  all  that  had  cost  Charles  his  life 
and  crown,  appeared  as  dust  in  the  balance.  For  what  was 
ship-money,  a  general  burden,  by  the  side  of  the  present 
decimation  of  a  single  class,  whose  offence  had  long  been 
expiated  by  a  composition  and  effaced  by  an  act  of  indem 
nity  ?  or  were  the  excessive  punishments  of  the  star-cham 
ber  so  odious  as  the  capital  executions  inflicted  without  trial 
by  peers,  whenever  it  suited  the  usurper  to  erect  his  high 
court  of  justice  ?  A  sense  of  present  evils  not  only  excited 
a  burning  desire  to  live  again  under  the  ancient  monarchy, 
but  obliterated,  especially  in  the  new  generation,  that  had  no 
distinct  remembrance  of  them,  the  apprehension  of  its  former 
abuses.2 

precincts,  decimating  to  extremity  whom  with  comfort  appeal  to   God,  and   dare 

they  pleased,  and   interrupted  the   pro-  also  to   their  own   consciences,  whether 

ceedings  at  law  upon  petitions  of  those  this  way  of  proceeding  with   them  hath 

who    pretended     themselves    aggrieved ;  been  the  matter  of  our  choice,  or  that 

threatening  such  as  would  not  yield  a  which  we  have  sought  an  occasion  for ; 

ready   submission   to   their  orders   with  or  whether,  contrary  to  our  own  incli- 

transportation  to  Jamaica,  or  some  other  nations  and  the  constant  course  of  our 

plantation  in  the  West  Indies,"  &c.     P.  carriage  towards  them,  which  hath  been 

559.  to  oblige  them   by  kindness   to   forsake 

1  Thurloe.  vol.  iv.   passim.     The   un-  their  former  principles,  which  God  hath 
popularity  of  Cromwell's  government  ap-  so  often  and  so  eminently  bore  witness 
pears  strongly  in  the  letters  of  this  col-  against,  we   have  not  been   constrained 
lection.     Duckiufield,  a  Cheshire  gentle-  and  necessitated  hereunto,  and  without 
man,    writes,  —  "Charles    Stuart    hath  the  doing  whereof  we  should  have  been 
500  friends  in  these  adjacent  counties  for  wanting  to  our  duty  to  God  and  these 
every  one  friend  to  you  amongst  them."  nations. 

Vol.  iii.  294.  "  That  character  of  difference  between 

2  It  may  be  fair  towards  Cromwell  to  them  and  the  rest  of  the  people  which  is 
give  his  own  apology  for  the  decimation  now  put   upon   them   is   occasioned    by 
of  the  royalists,  in  a  declaration   pub-  themselves,  not  by  us.     There  is  nothing 
lished  1655.     "  It  is  a  trouble  to  us  to  they  have  more  industriously  labored  in 
be  still  rubbing  upon  the  old  sore,  dis-  than   this  —  to   keep   themselves   distin- 
obligiug  those  whom  we  hope  time  and  guished  from    the   well-affected  of   this 
patience  might  make  friends  ;  but  we  can  nation  :   to  which  end  they  have  kept 


COMMONWEALTH.  OF   CROMWELL.  243 

If  this  decimation  of  the  royalists  could  pass  for  an  act 
of  severity  towards  a  proscribed  faction,  in  which  His  arbitrary 
the  rest  of  the  nation  might  fancy  themselves  not  government, 
interested,  Cromwell  did  not  fail  to  show  that  he  designed  to 
exert  an  equally  despotic  command  over  every  man's  prop 
erty.  With  the  advice  of  the  council,  he  had  imposed,  or 
as  I  conceive  (for  it  is  not  clearly  explained)  continued,  a 
duty  on  merchandise  beyond  the  time  limited  by  law.  A 
Mr.  George  Cony  having  refused  to  pay  this  tax,  it  was  en 
forced  from  him,  on  which  he  sued  the  collector.  Cromwell 
sent  his  counsel,  Maynard,  Twisden,  and  Wyndham,  to  the 
Tower,  who  soon  petitioned  for  liberty,  and  abandoned  their 
client.  Rolle,  the  chief-justice,  when  the  cause  came  on, 
dared  not  give  judgment  against  the  protector ;  yet,  not 
caring  to  decide  in  his  favor,  postponed  the  case  till  the 
next  term,  and  meanwhile  retired  from  the  bench.  Glyn, 
who  succeeded  him  upon  it,  took  care  to  have  this  business 
accommodated  with  Cony,  who,  at  some  loss  of  public  rep 
utation,  withdrew  his  suit.  Sir  Peter  Wentworth,  having 
brought  a  similar  action,  was  summoned  before  the  council, 
and  asked  if  he  would  give  it  up.  u  If  you  command  me," 
he  replied  to  Cromwell,  "  I  must  submit ; "  which  the  pro 
tector  did,  and  the  action  was  withdrawn.1 

Though  it  cannot  be  said  that  such  an  interference  with 
the  privileges  of  advocates  or  the  integrity  of  judges  was 
without  precedents  in  the  times  of  the  Stuarts,  yet  it  had 
never  been  done  in  so  public  or  shameless  a  manner.  Sev 
eral  other  in&tances  wherein  the  usurper  diverted  justice 
from  its  course,  or  violated  the  known  securities  of  English 
men,  will  be  found  in  most  general  histories ;  not  to  dwell  on 
that  most  flagrant  of  all,  the  erection  of  his  high  court  of 
justice,  by  which  Gerard  and  Vowel  in  1654,  Slingsby  and 

their    conversation    apart  :    as    if    they  interest  from  it,  gives  us  ground  to  judge 

would    avoid    the    very    beginnings    of  that  they  have  separated  themselves  from 

union,    have    bred    and    educated   their  the  body  of  the  nation ;  and  therefore  we 

children  by  the  sequestered  and  ejected  leave  it  to  all  mankind  to  judge  whether 

clergy,   and   very   much   confined    their  we  ought   not   to   be  timely  jealous  of 

marriages  and  alliances  within  their  own  that  separation,  and  to  proceed  so  against 

party,  as  if  they  meant  to  entail  their  them  as  they  may  be  at  the  charge  of 

quarrel,  and  prevent  the  means  to  recon-  those  remedies  which  are  required  against 

cile  posterity  ;  which  with  the  great  pains  the  dangers  they  have  bred." 

they  take   upon  all  occasions  to   lessen  l  Ludlow,  528.     Clarendon,  &c.     Clar- 

and  suppress  the  esteem  and  honor  of  endon  relates  the  same  story,  with  addi- 

the  English  nation  in  all  their  actions  tional  circumstances  of  Cromwell's  auda- 

and  undertakings  abroad,  striving  withal  cious  contempt  for  the  courts  of  justice, 

to  make  other  nations  distinguish  their  and  for  the  very  name  of  magua  chartu. 


244  PARLIAMENT   OF   165G.  CHAP.  X. 

Hewit  in  1658,  were  brought  to  the  scaffold.1  I  cannot 
therefore  agree  in  the  praises  which  have  been  showered 
upon  Cromwell  for  the  just  administration  of  the  laws  under 
his  dominion.  That,  between  party  and  party,  the  ordinary 
civil  rights  of  men  were  fairly  dealt  with,  is  no  extraordi 
nary  praise  ;  and  it  may  be  admitted  that  he  filled  the 
benches  of  justice  with  able  lawyers,  though  not  so  consid 
erable  as  those  of  the  reign  of  Charles  II. ;  but  it  is  mani 
fest  that,  so  far  as  his  own  authority  was  concerned,  no 
hereditary  despot,  proud  in  the  crimes  of  a  hundred  ances 
tors,  could  more  have  spurned  at  every  limitation  than  this 
soldier  of  a  commonwealth.2 

Amidst  so  general  a  hatred,  trusting  to  the  effect  of  an 
He  summons  equally  general  terror,  the  protector  ventured  to 
another  par-  summon  a  parliament  in  1656.  Besides  the  com 
mon  necessities  for  money,  he  had  doubtless  in  his 
head  that  remarkable  scheme  which  was  developed  during  its 
session.3  Even  the  despotic  influence  of  his  major-generals, 
and  the  political  annihilation  of  the  most  considerable  body 
of  the  gentry,  then  laboring  under  the  imputation  of  delin 
quency  for  their  attachment  to  the  late  king,  did  not  enable 
him  to  obtain  a  secure  majority  in  the  assembly ;  and  he  wras 
driven  to  the  audacious  measure  of  excluding  above  ninety 
members,  duly  returned  by  their  constituents,  from  taking 
their  seats.  Their  colleagues  wanted  courage  to  resist  this 

1  State  Trials,  vi.    Whitelock  advised  the  bench.    And  it  is  to  be  remembered 
the  protector  to  proceed  according  to  law  that  Hale  fell   under   the   usurper's  dis- 
against  Hewit  and    Sliiigsby  ;    "but   his  pleasure  for  administering  justice  with  an 
highness  was  too  much  in  love  with  the  impartiality  that  did  not  suit  his  govern- 
new  way.''     P.  673.  ment;  and  ceased  to  go  the  circuit  be- 

2  The  late  editor  of  the  State  Trials,  v.  cause  the  criminal  law  was  not  allowed 
935,  has  introduced  a  sort  of  episodical  to  have  its  course. 

dissertation  on  the  administration  of  jus-  3  Thurloe  writes  to  Montague  (Carte's 

tice  during  the  commonwealth,  with  the  Letters,  ii.  110)  that  he  cannot  give  him 

view,  as  far  as  appears,  of  setting  Crom-  the  reasons  for  calling   this  parliament, 

well  in  a  favorable  light.     For  this  pur-  except  in  cipher.     He  says  in  the  same 

pose  he  quotes  several  passages  of  vague  place  of  the  committal  of  Ludlow,  Vane, 

commendation    from    different    authors,  and  others,  "  There  was  a  necessity  not 

and  among  others  one  from  Burke,  writ-  only  for   peace'    sake  to  do  this,  but  to 

ten  in  haste,  to  serve  an  immediate  pur-  let  the  nation  see  those  that  govern  are 

pose,  and  evidently  from  a  very  super-  in  good  earnest,  and  intend  not  to  quit 

ficial  recollection  of  our  history.     It  has  the  government  wholly  into  the  hands  of 

been  said  that  Cromwell  sought  out  men  the  parliament,    as    some    would    needs 

of  character  from  the  party  most  opposite  make  the  world   believe:"   p.  112.     His 

to  his  designs.    The  proof  given  is  the  ap-  first     direct    allusion    to    the    projected 

pointment  of  Hale  to  be  a  puisne  judge,  change  is  in  writing  to  Henry  Cromwell, 

But  Hale  had  not  been  a  royalist,  that  is,  9th  Dec.  1656.     Thurloe  Papers,  v.  194. 

an  adherent  of  Charles,  and  had  taken  The  influence  exerted  by  his  legates,  the 

the  engagement  as  well  as  the  covenant,  major-generals,    appears    in    Thurloe,  v. 

It  was  no  great  effort  of  virtue  to  place  299,  et  post.    But  they  complained  of  the 

an  eminent  lawyer  and  worthy  man  on  elections.     Id.  302,  341,  371. 


COMMONWEALTH.      CROMWELL'S   DESIGN  TO   BE  KING.       245 

violation  of  all  privilege  ;  and,  after  referring  them  to  the 
council  for  approbation,  resolved  to  proceed  with  public  busi 
ness.  The  excluded  members,  consisting  partly  of  the  re 
publican,  partly  of  the  presbyterian  factions,  published  a 
remonstrance  in  a  very  high  strain,  but  obtained  no  redress.* 
Cromwell,  like  so  many  other  usurpers,  felt  his  position 
too  precarious,  or  his  vanity  ungratified,  without  . 
the  name  which  mankind  have  agreed  to  worship,  take  the 
He  had,  as  evidently  appears  from  the  conversa-  crown- 
tions  recorded  by  Whitelock,  long  since  aspired  to  this  titu 
lar,  as  well  as  to  the  real,  preeminence  ;  and  the  banished 
king's  friends  had  contemplated  the  probability  of  his  ob 
taining  it  with  dismay.2  Affectionate  towards  his  family,  lie 
wished  to  assure  the  stability  of  his  son's  succession,  and 
perhaps  to  please  the  vanity  of  his  daughters.  It  was  indeed 
a  very  reasonable  object  with  one  who  had  already  advanced 
so  far.  His  assumption  of  the  crown  was  desirable  to  many 
different  classes  ;  to  the  lawyers,  who,  besides  their  regard 
for  the  established  constitution,  knew  that  an  ancient  statute 
would  protect  those  who  served  a  de  facto  king  in  case  of  a 
restoration  of  the  exiled  family.;  to  the  nobility,  who  per 
ceived  that  their  legislative  right  must  immediately  revive  ; 
to  the  clergy,  who  judged  the  regular  ministry  more  likely 
to  be  secure  under  a  monarchy  ;  to  the  people,  who  hoped 
for  any  settlement  that  would  put  an  end  to  perpetual 
changes  ;  to  all  of  every  rank  and  profession  who  dreaded 
the  continuance  of  military  despotism,  and  demanded  only 
the  just  rights  and  privileges  of  their  country.  A  king  of 

i  Whitelock,  650.   Parl.  Hist.  1486.   On  of  good  conversation,  that  the  council,  in 

a  letter  to  the  speaker  from  the  members  pursuance  of  their  duty,  and  according  to 

who  had  been  refused  admittance  at  the  the  trust  reposed  in  them,  have  examined 

door  of  the  lobby,  Sept.  18.   the  house  the  said  returns,  and  have  not  refused  to 

ordered  the  clerk  of  the  commonwealth  approve  any  who  have  appeared  to  them 

to  attend    next  day  with  all  the  inden-  to  be  persons  of  integrity,  fearing  God. 

tures.     The    deputy  clerk  came  accord-  and  of  good  conversation;  and  those  who 

ingly,  with  an  excuse  for  his  principal,  are  not  approved,  his  highness  hath  given 

and  brought  the  indentures  ;  but  on  being  order  to  some  persons  to  take  care  that 

asked  why  the  names  of  certain  members  they  do  not  come  into  the  house.     Upon 

were  not  returned  to  the  house,  answered,  this  answer,  an    adjournment    was    pro- 

that  he  had  no  certificate  of  approbation  posed,  but  lost  by  115  to  80  :  and  it  being 

for  them.     The  house  on  this  sent  to  in-  moved  that   the  persons  who  have  been 

quire  of  the  council  why  these  members  returned  from  the  several  counties,  cities, 

had  not  been  approved.     They  returned  and  boroughs  to  serve  in  this  parliament, 

for  answer,  that,   whereas  it  is  ordained  and  have  not  been  approved,  be  referred 

by  a  clause  in  the  instrument  of  govern-  to  the  council  for  approbation,  and  that 

nient    that    the    persons   who    shall   be  the  house  do  proceed  with  the  great: affairs 

elated  to  serve   in    parliament    shall  be  of  the  nation,  the  question  was  carried  by 

such  and  no  other  than  such  as  are  per-  125  to  29.     Journals.  Sept.  22. 
buns  of  known  integrity,  fearing  God,  and        ~  Clar.  State  Papers,  iii.  201,  &c. 


246  CROMWELL'S   DESIGN   TO   BE  KIXG.         CHAP.  X. 

England  could  succeed  only  to  a  bounded  prerogative,  and 
must  govern  by  the  known  laws  ;  a  protector,  as  the  nation 
had  well  felt,  with  less  nominal  authority,  had  all  the  sword 
could  confer.  And,  though  there  might  be  little  chance  that 
Oliver  would  abate  one  jot  of  a  despotism  for  which  not  the 
times  of  the  Tudors  could  furnish  a  precedent,  yet  his  life 
was  far  worn,  and  under  a  successor  it  was  to  be  expected 
that  future  parliaments  might  assert  again  all  those  liberties 
for  which  they  had  contended  against  Charles.1  A  few  of 
the  royalists  might  perhaps  fancy  that  the  restoration  of  the 
royal  title  would  lead  to  that  of  the  lawful  heir  ;  but  a 
greater  number  were  content  to  abandon  a  nearly  desperate 
cause,  if  they  could  but  see  the  more  valuable  object  of  their 
concern,  the  form  itself  of  polity,  reestablished.2  There 
can  be,  as  it  appears  to  me,  little  room  for  doubt,  that,  if 
Cromwell  had  overcome  the  resistance  of  his  generals,  he 
would  have  transmitted  the  sceptre  to  his  descendants  with 
the  acquiescence  and  tacit  approbation  of  the  kingdom.  Had 
we  been  living  ever  since  under  the  rule  of  his  dynasty, 
what  tone  would  our  historians  have  taken  as  to  his  charac 
ter  and  that  of  the  house  of  Stuart  ? 

The  scheme,  however,  of  founding  a  new  royal  line  failed 

l  The  whole  conference  that  took  place  ment.  Cromwell's  indistinct  and  evasive 
at  Whitehall,  between  Cromwell  and  the  style  in  his  share  of  this  debate  betrays 
committee  of  parliament,  on  this  subject,  the  secret  inclinations  of  his  heart.  He 
was  published  by  authority,  and  may  be  kept  his  ultimate  intentions,  however, 
read  in  the  Somers  Tracts,  vi.  349.  It  is  very  secret ;  for  Thurloe  professes  his 
very  interesting.  The  lawyers  did  not  ignorance  of  them,  even  in  writing  to 
hesitate  to  support  the  proposition,  on  Henry  Cromwell,  vol.  vi.  p.  219.  et  post, 
the  ground  of  the  more  definite  and  legal  This  correspondence  shows  that  the  pru- 
character  of  a  king's  authority.  The  dent  secretary  was  uneasy  at  the  posture 
"king's  prerogative,''  says  Glyn,  "is  of  affairs,  and  the  manifest  dissatisfaction 
known  by  law  ;  he  (king  Charles)  did  ex-  of  Fleetwood  and  Desborough,  which  had 
patiate  beyond  the  duty  ;  that's  the  evil  a  dangerous  influence  on  others  less 
of  the  man  :  but  in  Westminster-hall  the  bound  to  the  present  family  :  yet  he  had 
king's  prerogative  was  under  the  courts  set  his  heart  on  this  mode  of  settlement, 
of  justice,  and  is  bounded  as  well  as  any  and  was  much  disappointed  at  his  mas- 
acre  of  land,  or  anything  a  man  hath,  as  ter's  ultimate  refusal, 
much  as  any  controversy  between  party  '-  Clarendon's  Hist.  vii.  194.  It  appears 
and  party ;  and  therefore,  the  office  being  by  Clarendon's  private  letters  that  he  had 
lawful  in  its  nature,  known  to  the  nation,  expected  to  see  Cromwell  assume  the 
certain  in  itself,  and  confined  and  regu-  title  of  king  from  the  year  1654.  Vol. 
lated  by  the  law,  and  the  other  office  not  iii.  pp.  201.  223,  224.  If  we  may  trust 
being  so,  that  was  a  great  ground  of  the  what  is  here  called  an  intercepted  letter 
reason  why  the  parliament  did  so  much  (p.  328),  Mazarin  had  told  Cromwell  that 
insist  upon  this  office  and  title,  not  as  France  would  enter  into  a  strict  league 
circumstantial,  but  as  essential."  P.  359.  with  him,  if  he  could  settle  himself  in 
gee  also  what  Lenthall  says,  p.  356,  the  throne,  and  make  it  hereditary  ;  to 
against  the  indefiuiteuess  of  the  protec-  which  he  answered  that  he  designed 
tor's  authority.  shortly  to  take  the  crown,  restore  the 
Those  passages  were  evidently  implied  two  houses,  and  govern  by  the  ancient 
censures  of  the  late  course  of  govern-  laws.  But  this  may  be  apocryphal. 


COMMONWEALTH.          THE  PROJECT   FAILS.  2-47 

of  accomplishment,  as  is  well  known,  through  his  own  cau 
tion,  which  deterred  him  from  encountering  the  decided  oppo 
sition  of  his  army.  Some  of  his  contemporaries  The  project 
seem  to  have  deemed  this  abandonment,  or  more  fails- 
properly  suspension,  of  so  splendid  a  design  rather  deroga 
tory  to  his  firmness.1  But  few  men  were  better  judges  than 
Cromwell  of  what  might  be  achieved  by  daring.  It  is  cer 
tainly  not  impossible  that,  by  arresting  Lambert,  Whalley, 
and  some  other  generals,  he  might  have  crushed  for  the  mo 
ment  any  tendency  to  open  resistance.  But  the  experiment 
would  have  been  infinitely  hazardous.  He  had  gone  too  far 
in  the  path  of  violence  to  recover  the  high  road  of  law  by 
any  short  cut.  King  or  protector,  he  must  have  intimidated 
every  parliament,  or  sunk  under  its  encroachments.  A  new- 
modelled  army  might  have  served  his  turn  ;  but  there  would 
have  been  great  difficulties  in  its  formation.  It  had  from  the 
beginning  been  the  misfortune  of  his  government  that  it 
rested  on  a  basis  too  narrow  for  its  safety.  For  two  years 
he  had  reigned  with  no  support  but  the  independent  secta 
ries  and  the  army.  The  army  or  its  commanders  becoming 
odious  to  the  people,  he  had  sacrificed  them  to  the  hope  of 
popularity,  by  abolishing  the  civil  prefectures  of  the  major- 
generals,2  and  permitting  a  bill  for  again  decimating  the 
royalists  to  be  thrown  out  of  the  house.3  Their  disgust 

1  Clar.  vii.  203-  him  by  their  interest  in  the  army,  the 

2  Ludlow,  p.  581.     The  major-generals,  more  of  force  upholds  his  highness  living, 
or  at  least  many  of  them,  joined  the  op-  the  greater  when  he  is  dead  will  be  the 
position    to    Cromwell's    royalty.      Id.  p.  hopes  and  advantages  for  such  a  one  to 
586.     Clar.  State  Papers,  332.  effect  his  aim  who  desires  to  succeed  him. 

y  This  appears  from  the  following  pas-  Lambert  is  much  for  decimations."  Thur- 
sage  in  a  curious  letter  of  Mr.  Vincent  loe,  vi.  20.  lie  writes  again,  '•  I  am  con- 
Gookin  to  Henry  Cromwell,  27th  Jan.  fideut  it  is  judged  by  some  that  the  in- 
1657-  "  To-morrow  the  bill  for  decimat-  terest  of  the  godly  cannot  be  preserved 
ing  the  cavaliers  comes  again  into  debate,  but  by  the  dissolution  of  this,  if  not  all 
It  is  debated  with  much  heat  by  the  parliaments ;  and  their  endeavors  in  it 
major-generals,  and  as  hotly  almost  by  have  been  plainly  discovered  to  the  party 
the  anti-decimators.  I  believe  the  bill  most  concerned  to  know  them ;  which 
will  be  thrown  out  of  the  house.  In  my  will,  I  believe,  suddenly  occasion  a  reduc- 
opinion  those  that  speak  against  the  bill  ing  of  the  government  to  kingship,  to 
have  much  to  say  in  point  of  moral  jus-  which  his  highness  is  not  averse.  Pier- 
tice  and  prudence,;  bvit  that  which  makes  point  and  St.  John  have  been  often,  but 
me  fear  the  passing  of  the  bill  is,  that  secretly,  at  Whitehall.  I  know,  to  advise 
thereby  his  highness'  government  will  be  thereof."  P.  37.  Thurloe  again,  to  the 
more  founded  in  force,  and  more  removed  same  Henry  Cromwell,  on  February  3, 
from  that  natural  foundation  which  the  that  the  decimation  bill  was  thrown  out 
people  in  parliament  are  desirous  to  give  by  a  majority  of  forty  :  —  ''  Some  gentle- 
hiin  :  supposing  that  he  will  become  more  men  do  think  themselves  much  trampled 
th  -irs  than  now  he  is,  and  will  in  time  upon  by  this  vote,  and  are  extremely  sen- 
find  the  safety  and  peace  of  the  nation  to  sible  thereof;  and  the  truth  is,  it  hath 
be  as  well  maintained  by  the  laws  of  the  wrought  such  a  heat  in  the  house,  that  I 
land  as  by  the  sword.  And  truly,  sir,  if  fear  little  will  be  done  tor  the  future." 
any  others  have  pretensions  to  succeed  Id.  p.  38.  No  such  bill  appears,  eo  uom- 


248  CROMWELL'S   AUTHORITY  CHAP.  X. 

and  resentment,  excited  by  an  artful  intriguer,  Lambert,  who 
aspired  at  least  to  the  succession  of  the  protectorship,  found 
scope  in  the  new  project  of  monarchy,  naturally  obnoxious 
to  the  prejudices  of  true  fanatics,  who  still  fancied  themselves 
to  have  contended  for  a  republican  liberty.  We  find  that 
even  Fleetwood,  allied  by  marriage  to  Cromwell,  and  not 
involved  in  the  discontent  of  the  major-generals,  in  all  the 
sincerity  of  his  clouded  understanding,  revolted  from  the  in 
vidious  title,  and  would  have  retired  from  service  had  it  been 
assumed.  There  seems  therefore  reason  to  think  that  Crom 
well's  refusal  of  the  crown  was  an  inevitable  mortification. 
But  he  undoubtedly  did  not  lose  sight  of  the  object  for  the 
short  remainder  of  his  life.1 

The  fundamental  charter  of  the  English  commonwealth, 
under    the    protectorship  of  Cromwell,  had    been 
the  instrument  of  government,  drawn  up  by  the 
tectoris         council  of  officers    in    December,  1653,  and  an- 

augmented.  ,         .  ,  ,.„ 

proved  with  modifications  by  the  parliament  of 
the  next  year.  It  was  now  changed  to  the  "  Petition  and 
Advice,"  tendered  to  him  by  the  present  parliament  in  May, 
1G57,  which  made  very  essential  innovations  in  the  frame  of 
polity.  Though  he  bore,  as  formerly,  the  name  of  lord-pro 
tector,  we  may  say,  speaking  according  to  theoretical  classifi 
cation,  and  without  reference  to  his  actual  exercise  of  power, 
which  was  nearly  the  same  as  before,  that  the  English  gov 
ernment  in  the  first  period  should  be  ranged  in  the  order  of 
republics,  though  with  a  chief  magistrate  at  its  head  ;  but 
that  from  1657  it  became  substantially  a  monarchy,  and 
ought  to  be  placed  in  that  class,  notwithstanding  the  differ 
ence  in  the  style  of  its  sovereign.  The  Petition  and  Advice 

ine,  in  the  Journals.    But  a  bill  for  reg-  of  the  commonwealth's  men,  and  fearing 

ulating   the   militia  forces  was    thrown  a  mutiny  and  defection  of  a  great  part  of 

out,  Jan.  29,  by  124  to  88,  col.  Cromwell  the  army,  in  case  he  should  assume  that 

(Oliver's  cousin)  being  a   teller  for   the  title   and  office,  his  mind  changed,  and 

majority.  Probably  there  was  some  clause  many  of  the  officers  of  the  army  gave  out 

in  this  renewing  the   decimation  of  the  great  threatenings  against  him  in  case  he 

royalists.  should  do  it ;  he  therefore  thought  it  best 

i  Whitelock.   who    was    consulted    by  to  attend  some  better  season  and  oppor- 

Cromwell  on  this  business,  and  took  an  tunity  in  this  business,  and  refused  it  at 

active  part  as  one  of  the  committee  of  this  time  with  great  seemingearnestness." 

conference  appointed   by   the   house   of  P.  656.     The  chief  advisers  with   Crom- 

commons,  intimates  that  the  project  was  well  on  this  occasion,  besides  Whitelock, 

not  really  laid  aside.     ':  He  was  satisfied  were   lord   Broghill.  Pierpoint,  Thurloe, 

in  his  private  judgment  that  it  was  fit  and  sir  Charles  Wolseley.     Many  passa- 

for  him   to  take  upon  him  the   title  of  ges  in  Thurloe,  vol.  vii.,  show  that  Crom- 

king,  and  matters  were  prepared  in  order  well  preserved  to  the  last  his  views  on 

thereunto;  but  after  wards  by  solicitation  royalty. 


COMMONWEALTH.  AUGMENTED.  249 

had  been  compiled  with  a  constant  respect  to  that  article 
which  conferred  the  royal  dignity  on  the  protector  ; l  and 
when  this  was  withdrawn  at  his  request,  the  rest  of  the 
instrument  was  preserved  with  all  its  implied  attributions 
of  sovereignty.  The  style  is  that  of  subjects  addressing  a 
monarch  ;  the  powers  it  bestows,  the  privileges  it  claims,  are 
supposed,  according  to  the  expressions  employed,  the  one  to 
be  already  his  own,  the  other  to  emanate  from  his  will.  The 
necessity  of  his  consent  to  laws,  though  nowhere  mentioned, 
seems  to  have  been  taken  for  granted.  An  unlimited  power 
of  appointing  a  successor,  unknown  even  to  constitutional 
kingdoms,  was  vested  in  the  protector.  He  was  inaugurated 
with  solemnities  applicable  to  monarch*  ;  and  what  of  itself 
is  a  sufficient  test  of  the  monarchical  and  republican  species 
of  government,  an  oath  of  allegiance  was  taken  by  every 
member  of  parliament  to  the  protector  singly,  without  any 
mention  of  the  commonwealth.2  It  is  surely,  therefore,  no 
paradox  to  assert  that  Oliver  Cromwell  was  de  facto  sov 
ereign  of  England  during  the  interval  from  June,  1G57,  to 
his  death  in  September,  1658. 

The  zealous  opponents  of  royalty  could  not  be  insensible 
that  they  had  seen  it  revive  in  everything  except  a  title, 
which  was  not  likely  to  remain  long  behind.8  It  was  too 
late,  however,  to  oppose  the  first  magistrate's  personal  author 
ity.  But  there  remained  one  important  point  of  contention, 
which  the  new  constitution  had  not  fully  settled.  It  was 
therein  provided  that  the  parliament  should  consist  of  two 

i  \Vkitelock,  657.     It  had  been  agreed,  longing  ;   and   to  exercise  the  same  ac- 

in  discussing  the  Petition  and  Advice  in  cording   to   the   laws  of  these  nations." 

parliament,  to  postpone  the  first  article  On    Cromwell  s  first   demurring   to   the 

requesting   the  protector  to  assume  the  proposal,  it  was  resolved  to  adhere  to  the 

title  of  king,  till  the  rest  of  the  charter  Petition  and  Advice  by  the  small  major- 

(to  use   a  modern  but   not  inapplicable  ityof78to65.     This  was  perhaps  a  suffi- 

word)  had  been  gone  through.     One  of  cient  warning  that  he  should  not  proceed, 

the  subsequent  articles,  fixing   the  rev-  2  Journals.  21st  June.  This  oath,  which 

enue  at  1,300,00(M.  per  annum,  provides  effectually  declared  the  parliament  to  be 

that  no  part  thereof  should  be  raised  by  the  protector's  subjects,  was  only  carried 

a  land-tax,  "  and  this  not  to  be  altered  by  63  to  55.     Lambert  refused  it,  and  was 

without  the  consent  of  the  three  estates  dismissed  the  army  in  consequence,  with 

in  parliament.-''     A  division  took  place,  a  pension  of  2000/.  per  annum,  instead  of 

in  consequence,  no  doubt,  of  this  insidi-  his  pay,  10/.  a-day  :  so  well  did  they  cater 

ous   expression,  which  was  preserved  by  for  themselves.    Ludlow,  593.     Broderick 

97  to  5X).     Journals.  13th  March.      The  wrote  to  Hyde,  June  30.  1657,  that  there 

first  article  was  carried,  after  much  de-  was  a  general   tranquillity  in  England, 

bate,  on  March  24,  by  123  to  62.     It  stood  all    parties   seeming    satisfied   with    the 

thus:    "Resolved,  That  your    highness  compromise;   Fleetwood  and  Desborough 

will  be  pleased  to  assume  the  name,  style,  more  absolutely  Cromwell's  friends  than 

dignity,  and  office  of  king  of  England,  before,  and  Lambert  very  silent.     Clar. 

Scotland,  and  Ireland,  and  the  respective  State  Papers,  349. 

dominions  and  territories  thereunto  be-  »  Thurloe,  vi.  310. 


250  NEW   HOUSE   OF  LORDS.  CHAP.  X. 

houses;  namely,  the  commons,  and  what  they  always  termed, 
with  an  awkward  generality,  the  other  house.  This  was  to 
consist  of  not  more  than  seventy,  nor  less  than  forty  persons, 
to  be  nominated  by  the  protector,  and,  as  it  stood  at  first,  to 
be  approved  by  the  commons.  But,  before  the  close  of  the 
session,  the  court  party  prevailed  so  far  as  to  procure  the  re 
peal  of  this  last  condition  ; l  and  Cromwell  accord- 
He  aims  at  i  ,  .  ,  .  „ 

forming  a  mgly  issued  writs  of  summons  to  persons  of  va- 
ofToriT  rious  parties,  a  few  of  the  ancient  peers,  a  few  of 
his  adversaries,  whom  he  hoped  to  gain  over,  or  at 
least  to  exclude  from  the  commons,  and  of  course  a  majority 
of  his  steady  adherents.  To  all  these  he  gave  the  title  of 
lords,  and  in  the  next  session  their  assembly  denominated 
itself  the  lords'  house.2  This  measure  encountered  consid 
erable  difficulty.  The  republican  party,  almost  as  much 
attached  to  that  vote  which  had  declared  the  house  of  lords 
useless  as  to  that  which  had  abolished  the  monarchy,  and 
well  aware  of  the  intimate  connection  between  the  two,  re 
sisted  the  assumption  of  this  aristocratic  title,  instead  of  that 
of  the  other  house,  which  the  Petition  and  Advice  had  sanc 
tioned.  The  real  peers  feared  to  compromise  their  hereditary 
right  by  sitting  in  an  assembly  where  the  tenure  was  only 
during  life  ;  and  disdained  some  of  their  colleagues,  such  as 
Pride  and  Hewson,  low-born  and  insolent  men,  whom  Crom 
well  had  rather  injudiciously  bribed  with  this  new  nobility  ; 
though,  with  these  few  exceptions,  his  house  of  lords  was  re 
spectably  composed.  Hence,  in  the  short  session  of  January, 
1658,  wherein  the  late  excluded  members  were  permitted  to 
take  their  seats,  so  many  difficulties  were  made  about  ac 
knowledging  the  lords'  house  by  that  denomination,  that  the 
protector  hastily  and  angrily  dissolved  the  parliament.3 

It  is  a  singular  part  of  Cromwell's  system  of  policy  that 
he  would  neither  reign  with  parliaments  nor  without  them  ; 
impatient  of  an  opposition  which  he  was  sure  to  experience, 
he  still  never  seems  to  have  meditated  the  attainment  of  a 


l  Compare  Journals,  llth  March  with  mentioned  by  Thurloe,  vi.  107,  &c.,  and 

24th  June.  Ludlow,  597.  Not  one  of  the  true  peers, 

a  Whitelock,  665.  They  were  to  have  except  lord  Euro,  took  his  seat  in  this 

a  judicial  power  much  like  that  of  the  house ;  and  Haslerig,  who  had  been  uoru- 

real  house  of  lords.  Journals,  March.  inated  merely  to  weaken  his  influence, 

a  Whitelock;  Parl.  Hist.  The  former  chose  to  retain  his  place  in  the  commons, 

says  this  was  done  against  his  advice.  The  list  of  these  pretended  lords  in  Thur- 

These  debates  about  the  other  house  are  loe.  vi.  668,  is  not  quite  the  same  as  that 

to  be  traced  iu  the  Journals;  and  are  in  \Vhitelock. 


COMMONWEALTH.        DEATH   OF   CROMWELL.  251 

naked  and  avowed  despotism.  This  was  probably  due  to  his 
observation  of  the  ruinous  consequences  that  Charles  had 
brought  on  himself  by  that  course,  and  his  knowledge  of  the 
temper  of  the  English,  never  content  without  the  exterior 
forms  of  liberty,  as  well  as  to  the  suggestions  of  counsellors 
who  were  not  destitute  of  concern  for  the  laws.  He  had  also 
his  great  design  yet  to  accomplish,  which  could  only  be  safely 
done  under  the  sanction  of  a  parliament.  A  very  short  time, 
accordingly,  before  his  death,  we  find  that  he  had  not  only 
resolved  to  meet  once  more  the  representatives  of  the  nation, 
but  was  tampering  with  several  of  the  leading  officers  to  ob 
tain  their  consent  to  an  hereditary  succession.  The  majority 
however  of  a  council  of  nine,  to  whom  he  referred  this  sug 
gestion,  would  only  consent  that  the  protector  for  the  time 
being  should  have  the  power  of  nominating  his  successor ;  a 
vain  attempt  to  escape  from  that  regal  form  of  government 
which  they  had  been  taught  to  abhor.1  But  a  sudden  illness, 
of  a  nature  seldom  fatal  except  to  a  constitution  already  shat 
tered  by  fatigue  and  anxiety,  rendered  abortive  all  these 
projects  of  Cromwell's  ambition. 

He  left  a  fame  behind  him  proportioned  to  his  extraordi 
nary  fortunes  and   the  great  qualities  which  sus-  ffig  death 
tained  them  ;  still  more  perhaps  the  admiration  of  and  char- 
strangers  than  of  his  country,  because  that  senti-  acter' 
ment  was  less  alloyed  by  hatred,  which  seeks  to  extenuate  the 
glory  that  irritates  it.    The  nation  itself  forgave  much  to  one 
who  had  brought  back  the  renown  of  her  ancient  story,  the 
traditions  of  Elizabeth's  age,  after  the  ignominious  reigns  of 
her  successors.     This   contrast  with  James  and  Charles  in 
their  foreign  policy  gave  additional  lustre  to  the  era  of  the 

i  This  junto  of  nine  debated  how  they  major  part  voted  that  succession  in  the 
might  be  secure  against  the  cavaliers,  government  was  indifferent  whether  it 
One  scheme  was  an  oath  of  abjuration  ;  were  by  election  or  hereditary  ;  but  after- 
but  this  it  was  thought  they  would  all  wards  some  would  needs  add  that  it  was 
take :  another  was  to  lay  a  heavy  tax  on  desirable  to  have  it  continued  elective  ; 
them;  "a  moiety  of  their  estates  was  that  is,  that  the  chief  magistrate  should 
spoken  of ;  but  this,  I  suppose,  will  not  always  name  his  successor,  and  that  of 
go  down  with  all  the  nine,  and  least  of  hereditary  avoided;  and  I  fear  the  word 
all  will  it  be  swallowed  by  the  parlia-  '  desirable  '  will  be  made  '  necessary,'  if 
ment,  who  will  not  be  persuaded  to  ever  it  come  upon  the  trial.  His  high- 
punish  both  iioceut  and  innocent  with-  ness,  finding  he  can  have  no  advice  from 
out  distinction.''  22d  June  :  Thurloe,  those  he  most  expected  it  fi'om,  saith  he 
vol.  vii.  p.  198.  And  again,  p.  2»59:  ;-  1  will  take  his  own  resolutions,  and  that 
believe  we  are  out  of  danger  of  our  he  can  no  longer  satisfy  himself  to  sit 
junto,  and  I  think  also  of  ever  having  still,  and  make  himself  guilty  of  the  loss 
such  another.  As  I  take  it,  the  report  of  all  the  honest  party  and  of  the  nation 
was  made  to  his  highness  upon  Thurs-  itself." 
day.  After  much  consideration  the 


252  HIS   CHARACTER.  CHAP.  X. 

protectorate.  There  could  not  but  be  a  sense  of  national 
pride  to  see  an  Englishman,  but  yesterday  raised  above  the 
many,  without  one  drop  of  blood  in  his  veins  which  the 
princes  of  the  earth  could  challenge  as  their  own,  receive  the 
homage  of  those  who  acknowledge  no  right  to  power,  and 
hardly  any  title  to  respect,  except  that  of  prescription.  The 
sluggish  pride  of  the  court  of  Spain,  the  mean-spirited  cun 
ning  of  Mazarin,  the  irregular  imagination  of  Christina, 
sought  with  emulous  ardor  the  friendship  of  our  usurper.1 
He  had  the  advantage  of  reaping  the  harvest  which  he  had 
not  sown,  by  an  honorable  treaty  with  Holland,  the  fruit  of 
victories  achieved  under  the  parliament.  But  he  still  em 
ployed  the  great  energies  of  Blake  in  the  service  for  which 
he  was  so  eminently  fitted ;  and  it  is  just  to  say  that  the 
maritime  glory  of  England  may  first  be  traced  from  the  era 
of  the  commonwealth  in  a  track  of  continuous  light.  The 
oppressed  protestants  in  catholic  kingdoms,  disgusted  at  the 
lukewarmness  and  half-apostasy  of  the  Stuarts,  looked  up  to 
him  as  their  patron  and  mediator.2  Courted  by  the  two  rival 
monarchies  of  Europe,  he  seemed  to  threaten  both  with  his 
hostility  ;  and  when  he  declared  against  Spain,  and  attacked 
her  West  India  possessions,  with  little  pretence  certainly  of 
justice,  but  not  by  any  means,  as  I  conceive,  with  the  impol 
icy  sometimes  charged  against  him,  so  auspicious  was  his  star 
that  the  very  failure  and  disappointment  of  that  expedition 
obtained  a  more  advantageous  possession  for  England  than 
all  the  triumphs  of  her  former  kings. 

Notwithstanding  this  external  splendor,  which  has  deceived 
some  of  our  own  and  most  foreign  writers,  it  is  evident  that 

1  Harris,   p.  348,   has  collected  some  ever,  that  he  was  very  far  from  having 
curious    instances    of    the    servility    of  any  thought   to   draw  them  from   their 
crowned  heads  to  Cromwell.  obedience,  as  had  been  imputed  to  him. 

2  See  Clarendon,  vii.  297.      He  saved  and  that  he  would  arm  against  them  if 
Nismes  from  military  execution  on   ac-  they  should  offer,  frivolously  and  with- 
count  of  a  riot,  wherein  the  Huguenots  out  a   cause,   to   disturb   the    peace  of 
seem  to  have  be"eii  much  to  blame.    "In  France.     Thurloe,   iii.   6.     In   fact,    the 
the  treaty  between  England  and  France,  French  protestants  were  in  the  habit  of 
1654,    the    French,   in    agreeing   to    the  writing  to  Thurloe,  as  this  collection  tes- 
secret  article  about  the  exclusion  of  the  tines,  whenever  they  thought  themselves 
royalists,  endeavored  to  make  it  recipro-  injured,     which     happened     frequently 
cal,  that  the, commissioners  of  rebels  in  enough      Cromwell's   noble   zeal  in    be- 
France  should  not  be  admitted  in  Eng-  half  of  the  Vaudois  is  well  known.     See 
land.    This  did  not  seem  very  outrageous  this  , volume  of   Thurloe,    p.    412,    &c. 
—  but  Cromwell  objected  that  the  French  Mazarin  and  the  catholic  powers  in  gen- 
protestants  would  be  thus  excluded  from  eral  endeavored   to  lie  down  that  mas- 
imploring   the  assistance  of  England  if  sacre  ;    but  the  usurper  had  too  much 
they  were  persecuted ;  protesting,  how-  protestaut  spirit   to   believe   them.     Id. 

536. 


COMMONWEALTH.        CROMWELL   AND   NAPOLEON.  253 

the  submission  of  the  people  to  Cromwell  was  far  from  peace 
able  or  voluntary.  His  strong  and  skilful  grasp  kept  down 
a  nation  of  enemies  that  must  naturally,  to  judge  from  their 
numbers  and  inveteracy,  have  overwhelmed  him.  It  required 
a  dexterous  management  to  play  with  the  army,  and  without 
the  army  he  could  not  have  existed  as  sovereign  for  a  day. 
Yet  it  seems  improbable  that,  had  Cromwell  lived,  any  insur 
rection  or  conspiracy,  setting  aside  assassination,  could  have 
overthrown  a  possession  so  fenced  by  systematic  vigilance,  by 
experienced  caution,  by  the  respect  and  terror  that  belonged 
to  his  name.  The  royalist  and  republican  intrigues  had  gone 
on  for  several  years  without  intermission  ;  but  every  part  of 
their  designs  was  open  to  him  ;  and  it  appears  that  there  was 
not  courage  or  rather  temerity  sufficient  to  make  any  open 
demonstration  of  so  prevalent  a  disaffection.1 

The  most  superficial  observers  cannot  have  overlooked  the 
general  resemblances  in  the  fortunes  and  character  of  Crom 
well,  and  of  him  wrho,  more  recently  and  upon  an  ampler 
theatre,  has  struck  nations  with  wonder  and  awe.  But  the 
parallel  may  be  traced  more  closely  than  perhaps  has  hitherto 
been  remarked.  Both  raised  to  power  by  the  only  merit 
which  a  revolution  leaves  uncontroverted  and  untarnished, 
that  of  military  achievements,  in  that  reflux  of  public  senti 
ment  when  the  fervid  enthusiasm  of  democracy  gives  place 
to  disgust  at  its  excesses  and  a  desire  of  firm  government. 
The  means  of  greatness  the  same  to  both  — the  extinction  of 
a  representative  assembly,  once  national,  but  already  muti 
lated  by  violence,  and  sunk  by  its  submission  to  that  illegal 
force  into  general  contempt.  In  military  science  or  the 
renown  of  their  exploits  we  cannot  certainly  rank  Cromwell 
by  the  side  of  him  for  whose  genius  and  ambition  all  Europe 
seemed  the  appointed  quarry  ;  but  it  may  be  said  that  the 
former's  exploits  were  as  much  above  the  level  of  his  con 
temporaries,  and  more  the  fruits  of  an  original  uneducated 
capacity.  In  civil  government  there  can  be  no  adequate 
parallel  between  one  who  had  sucked  only  the  dregs  of  a 
besotted  fanaticism,  and  one  to  whom  the  stores  of  reason 
and  philosophy  were  open.  But  it  must  here  be  added  that 
Cromwell,  far  unlike  his  antitype,  never  showed  any  ^igns  of 
a  legislative  mind,  or  any  desire  to  fix  his  renown  on  that 
noblest  basis,  the  amelioration  of  social  institutions.  Both 

1  Ludlow,  GOT;  Thurloe,  i.  and  ii.  passim. 


254  CROMWELL  AND  NAPOLEON.  CHAP.  X. 

were  eminent  masters  of  human  nature,  and  played  with 
inferior  capacities  in  all  the  security  of  powerful  minds. 
Though  both,  coming  at  the  conclusion  of  a  struggle  for  lib 
erty,  trampled  upon  her  claims,  and  sometimes  spoke  disdain 
fully  of  her  name,  each  knew  how  to  associate  the  interests 
of  those  who  had  contended  for  her  with  his  own  ascendency, 
and  made  himself  the  representative  of  a  victorious  revolu 
tion.  Those  who  had  too  much  philosophy  or  zeal  for  free 
dom  to  give  way  to  popular  admiration  for  these  illustrious 
usurpers,  were  yet  amused  with  the  adulation  that  lawful 
princes  showered  on  them,  more  gratuitously  in  one  instance, 
with  servile  terror  in  the  other.  Both,  too,  repaid  in  some 
measure  this  homage  of  the  pretended  great  by  turning  their 
ambition  towards  those  honors  and  titles  which  they  knew  to 
be  so  little  connected  with  high  desert.  A  fallen  race  of 
monarchs,  which  had  made  way  for  the  greatness  of  each, 
cherished  hopes  of  restoration  by  their  power,  till  each,  by 
an  inexpiable  act  of  blood,  manifested  his  determination  to 
make  no  compromise  with  that  line.  Both  possessed  a  cer 
tain  coarse  good-nature  and  affability  that  covered  the  want 
of  conscience,  honor,  and  humanity  ;  quick  in  passion,  but 
not  vindictive,  and  averse  to  unnecessary  crimes.  Their 
fortunes  in  the  conclusion  of  life  were  indeed  very  different  : 
one  forfeited  the  affections  of  his  people,  which  the  other,  in 
the  character  at  least  of  their  master,  had  never  possessed ; 
one  furnished  a  moral  to  Europe  by  the  continuance  of  his 
success,  the  other  by  the  prodigiousness  of  his  fall.  A  fresh 
resemblance  arose  afterwards,  when  the  restoration  of  those 
royal  families,  whom  their  ascendant  had  kept  under,  revived 
ancient  animosities,  and  excited  new  ones ;  those  who  from 
love  of  democratical  liberty  had  borne  the  most  deadly  hatred 
to  the  apostates  who  had  betrayed  it,  recovering  some  affec 
tion  to  their  memory,  out  of  aversion  to  a  common  enemy. 
Our  English  republicans  have,  with  some  exceptions,  dis 
played  a  sympathy  for  the  name  of  Cromwell ;  and  I  need 
not  observe  how  remarkably  this  holds  good  in  the  case  of 
his  mighty  parallel.1 

l  Mrs.    Macaulay,    who    had   nothing  tors,  such  as   Neal,  and  in  some  measure 

of  compromise  or  conciliation  in  her  tern-  Harris,   were  particularly   open   to   this 

per,   and   breathed   the  entire  spirit  of  reproach,     lie  long  continued  (perhaps 

Vane  and  Ludlow,  makes  some  vigorous  the  present  tense  is  more  appropriate)  to 

and  just  animadversions  on    the    favor  b.'  revered  by  the   independents.      One 

shown  to  Cromwell  by  some  professors  of  who  well   knew   the  manners  he  paints 

a  regard  for  liberty.     The  dissenting  wri-  has  described  the  secret  idolatry  of  that 


COMMONWEALTH.      RICHARD  CROMWELL  PROTECTOR.          2oo 

The  death  of  a  great  man,  even  in  the  most  regular  course 
of  affairs,  seems  always  to  create  a  sort  of  pause  Ki(.hanl  hig 
in  the  movement  of  society  ;  it  is  always  a  prob-  son.  sue- 
lem  to  be  solved  only  by  experiment,  whether  the 
mechanism  of  government  may  not  be  disordered  by  the 
shock,  or  have  been  deprived  of  some  of  its  moving  powers. 
But  what  change  could  be  so  great  as  that  from  Oliver 
Cromwell  to  his  son  !  from  one  beneath  the  terror  of  whose 
name  a  nation  had  cowered  and  foreign  princes  grown  pale, 
one  trained  in  twenty  eventful  years  of  revolution,  the  first 
of  his  age  in  the  tick!  or  in  council,  to  a  young  man  fresh 
from  a  country  life,  uneducated,  unused  to  business,  as  little  a 
statesman  as  a  soldier,  and  endowed  by  nature  with  capaci 
ties  by  no  means  above  the  common.  It  seems  to  have  been 
a  mistake  in  Oliver,  that  with  the  projects  he  had  long  formed 
in  his  eldest  son's  favor,  he  should  have  taken  so  little  pains  to 
fashion  his  mind  and  manners  for  the  exercise  of  sovereign 
power,  while  he  had  placed  the  second  in  a  very  eminent  and 
arduous  station  ;  or  that,  if  he  despaired  of  Richard's  capac 
ity,  lie  should  have  trusted  him  to  encounter  those  perils  of 
disaffection  and  conspiracy  which  it  had  required  all  his  owrn 
vigilance  to  avert.  But,  whatever  might  be  his  plans,  the 
sudden  illness  which  carried  him  from  the  world  left  no  time 
for  completing  them.  The  Petition  and  Advice  had  simply 
empowered  him  to  appoint  a  successor,  without  prescribing 
the  mode.  It  appeared  consonant  to  law  and  reason  that  so 
important  a  trust  should  be  executed  in  a  notorious  manner, 
and  by  a  written  instrument;  or,  if  a  verbal  nomination 
might  seem  sufficient,  it  was  at  least  to  be  expected  that  this 
should  be  authenticated  by  solemn  and  indisputable  testi- 


seet  to    their  hero-saint.      See  Crabbe's  of  700.000/.  in  stores,  and   the  army  in 

tale  of  the  Frank  Courtship.  advance  of  their  pay  (subject,  however, 

Slingsly  Bethel!,  an  exception   perhaps  to  a  debt  of  near  oOO.OUCM.).  the   customs 

to  the  general  politics  of  this  sect,  pub-  and  excise  bringing  iu  nearly  a  million 

lished.    in     ItJiJT.  a    tract,    entitled    The  annually,  left  a  debt  which,  in  Richard's 

World's     Mistake     in    ((liver    Cromwell,  parliament,  was   given  iu  at   1.9UO,UUO/., 

with  the  purpose  of  decrying  his  policy  though  he  believes  this  to  have  been  pur- 

and  depreciating  his  genius.      Harleian  posely   exaggerated    in  order  to   procure 

Miscellany,    i.    2SO.      Hut   he    who    goes  supplies.      I  cannot  say    how    far   these 

about  to  prove  the  world  mistaken  in  its  sums  are  correct  :  but  it  is  to  be  kept  in 

estimate  of  a  public  character  has  always  mind  that  one  great  resource  of  the  par- 

a  difficult  cause  to  maintain.      Bethell,  liament,  confiscation,  sequestration,  corn- 

like    Mrs.   Macaulay  and   others,   labors  position,  could  not  be  repeated   forever. 

to  set   up  the  Rump  parliament  against  Neither  of  these  governments,  it  will  be 

the    soldier   who  dispersed    them  :    and  found  on  inquiry,    were  economical,  es- 

asserts    that    Cromwell,    having     found  pecially  in  respect  to  the  emoluments  of 

50U;OUO/.  iu  ready  money,  with  the  value  those  concerned  in  them. 


256  HIS   SUPPORTERS.  CHAP.  X. 

mony.  No  proof,  however,  was  ever  given  of  Richard's 
appointment  by  his  father,  except  a  recital  in  the  proclama 
tion  of  the  privy  council,  which,  whether  well  founded  or 
otherwise,  did  not  carry  conviction  to  the  minds  of  the  peo 
ple  ;  and  this,  even  if  we  call  it  but  an  informality,  aggra 
vated  the  numerous  legal  and  natural  deficiencies  of  his  title 
to  the  government.1 

This  very  difference,  however,  in  the  personal  qualifica- 
is  supported  ^ons  °^  ^ie  fatner  an(l  the  son,  procured  the  latter 
by  some  pru-  some  friends  whom  the  former  had  never  been 
ieu'  able  to  gain.  Many  of  the  presbyterian  party 
began  to  see  the  finger  of  God,  as  they  called  it,  in  his  peace 
able  accession,  and  to  think  they  owed  subjection  to  one  who 
came  in  neither  by  regicide,  nor  hypocrisy,  nor  violence.3 
Some  cool-headed  and  sincere  friends  of  liberty  entertained 
similar  opinions.  Pierpoint,  one  of  the  wisest  men  in  Eng 
land,  who  had  stood  aloof  from  the  protector's  government 
till  the  scheme  of  restoring  monarchy  came  into  discussion, 
had  great  hopes,  as  a  writer  of  high  authority  informs  us,  of 
settling  the  nation  in  the  enjoyment  of  its  liberties  under  the 
young  man  ;  who  was  "  so  flexible,"  says  that  writer,  "  to 
good  counsels,  that  there  was  nothing  desirable  in  a  prince 
which  might  not  have  been  hoped  in  him,  but  a  great  spirit 
and  a  just  title ;  the  first  of  which  sometimes  doth  more  hurt 
than  good  in  a  sovereign  ;  the  latter  would  have  been  sup 
plied  by  the  people's  deserved  approbation."  Pierpoint  be 
lieved  that  the  restoration  of  the  ancient  family  could  not  be 
effected  without  the  ruin  of  the  people's  liberty,  and  of  all 
who  had  been  its  champions  ;  so  that  no  royalist,  he  thought, 
who  had  any  regard  to  his  country,  would  attempt  it :  while 
this  establishment  of  monarchy  in  Richard's  person  might 
reconcile  that  party,  and  compose  all  differences  among  men 

i  Whitelock,  674  ;  Ludlow,  611,  624.  dered  it  that  the  council  and  army  hath 
Lord  Faucouberg  writes  in  cipher  to  received  him  with  all  manner  of  affec- 
Henry  Cromwell,  on  August  30,  that  tion.  He  is  this  day  proclaimed,  aud 
"  Thurloe  has  seemed  resolved  to  press  hitherto  there  seems  great  face  of  peace  ; 
him  in  his  intervals  to  such  a  nominatron  the  Lord  continue  it.''  Thurloe  State 
(of  a  successor);  but  whether  out  of  ap-  Papers,  vii.  365,372.  Lord  Fauconberg 
prehensions  to  displease  him  if  recover-  afterwards  confirms  the  fact  of  Rich- 
ing,  or  others  hereafter,  if  it  should  not  ard's  nomination.  P.  375  ;  and  see  p. 
succeed,  he  has  not  yet  done  it,  nor  do  I  415. 

believe  will.:'  Thurloe,  however,  an-  2  "  Many  sober  men  that  called  his 
nounces  on  Sept.  4,  that  "  his  highness  father  no  better  than  a  traitorous  hypo- 
was  pleased  before  his  death  to  declare  crite,  did  begin  to  think  that  they  owed 
my  lord  Richard  successor.  He  did  it  him  [  R.  0.  ]  subjection,"  &c.  Baxter, 
on  Monday ;  and  the  Lord  hath  so  or-  100. 


COMMONWEALTH.      COALITION  AGAINST   RICHARD.  257 

of  weight  and   zeal  for  the  public  good.1     lie  acted  accord 
ingly  on  those  principles  ;  and  became,  as  well  as  his  friend  St. 
John,  who  had  been  discountenanced  by  Oliver,  a  steady  sup 
porter  of  the  young  protector's  administration.     These  two, 
with  Thurloe,  Whitelock,  lord  Broghill,  and  a  very  few  more, 
formed  a  small  phalanx  of  experienced  counsellors  around  his 
unstable  throne.     And  I   must  confess   that  their  course  of 
policy  in  sustaining  Richard's  government  appears  to  me  the 
most  judicious  that,  in  the  actual  circumstances,  could  have 
been    adopted.     Pregnant  as   the   restoration   of  the   exiled 
family  was  with  incalculable  dangers,  the  English  monarchy 
would  have  revived  with  less  lustre  in  the  eyes  of  the  vulgar, 
but  with  more  security  for  peace  and  freedom,  in  the  line  of 
Cromwell.     Time  would  have  worn  away  the  stains  of  igno 
ble    birth    and    criminal    usurpation ;    and    the    young  man, 
whose    misfortune    has    subjected    him    to    rather  an    exag 
gerated    charge    of  gross    incapacity,   would    probably  have 
reigned  as  well  as  most  of  those  who  are  born  in  the  purple.2 
But  this  termination  was  defeated  by  the  combination  of 
some  who  knew  not  what  they  wished,  and  of  some  but  opposed 
who  wished  what  they  could  never  attain.     The  by  a  coaii- 
general    officers  who    had    been   well    content    to  " 
make  Cromwell  the  first  of  themselves,  or  greater  than  them 
selves  by  their  own  creation,  had  never  forgiven  his  manifest 
design  to  reign  over  them  as   one   of  a   superior  order,  and 
owing  nothing  to  their  pleasure.     They  had  begun   to  cabal 
during  his  last  illness.     Though  they  did  not  oppose  Rich 
ard's  succession,  they  continued  to  hold  meetings,  not  quite 
public,  but  exciting  intense  alarm  in  his  council.     As  if  dis 
daining  the  command  of  a  clownish  boy,  they  proposed  that 
the  station  of  lord-general  should  be  separated  from  that  of 
protector,  with  the  power  over  all  commissions  in  the  army, 
and  conferred  on  Fleetwood  ;  who,  though  his  brother-in-law, 
was  a  certain  instrument  in  their  hands.     The  vain  ambitious 
Lambert,  aspiring,  on  the  credit  of  some  military  reputation, 
to  wield  the   sceptre  of    Cromwell,   influenced    this    junto ; 
while    the  commonwealth's  party,  some  of  whom  were,    or 
had  been,  in  the  army,  drew  over  several  of  these  ignorant 

i  Hutchinson,  343.    She  does  not  name  commended    in    the  correspondence   of 

Pierpoint,  but  I  have  little  doubt  that  he  Thurloe  (pp.  491,  497) ;  and   in   fact    he 

is  meant.  did  nothing  amiss  duriug   hif  short  aJ- 

-  Richard's  conduct  is  more  than  once  ministration. 
VOL.    II.                                     17 


258  MEETING  OF  PARLIAMENT.  CHAP.  X. 

and  fanatical  soldiers.  Thurloe  describes  the  posture  of 
affairs  in  September  and  October,  while  all  Europe  was  ad 
miring  the  peaceable  transmission  of  Oliver's  power,  as  most 
alarming  ;  and  it  may  almost  be  said  that  Richard  had  already 
fallen  when  he  was  proclaimed  the  lord  protector  of  Eng 
land.1 

It  was  necessary  to  summon  a  parliament   on  the  usual 
Calls  a  score    of  obtaining   money.      Lord   Broghill  had 

parliament,  advised  this  measure  immediately  on  Oliver's 
death,2  and  perhaps  the  delay  might  be  rather  prejudicial  to 
the  new  establishment.  But  some  of  the  council  feared  a 
parliament  almost  as  much  as  they  did  the  army.  They 
called  one,  however,  to  meet  Jan.  27,  1659,  issuing  writs  in 
the  ordinary  manner  to  all  boroughs  which  had  been  accus 
tomed  to  send  members,  and  consequently  abandoning  the 
reformed  model  of  Cromwell.  This  Ludlow  attributes  to 
their  expectation  of  greater  influence  among  the  small 
boroughs ;  but  it  may  possibly  be  ascribed  still  more  to  a  de 
sire  of  returning  by  little  and  little  to  the  ancient  constitution, 
by  eradicating  the  revolutionary  innovations.  The  new  par 
liament  consisted  of  courtiers,  as  the  Cromwell  party  were 
always  denominated,  of  presbyterians,  among  whom  some  of 
cavalier  principles  crept  in,  and  of  republicans  ;  the  two 
latter  nearly  balancing,  with  their  united  weight,  the  minis 
terial  majority.3  They  began  with  an  oath  of  allegiance 
to  the  protector,  as  presented  by  the  late  parliament,  which, 
as  usual  in  such  cases,  his  enemies  generally  took  without 

i  Thurloe,  vii.  320,  et  post,  passim,  in  royalist,  and  might  hope  to  bring  over 

letters  both  from  himself  and  lord  Fau-  his  brother-in-law, 

conberg.  Thus,  immediately  on  Richard's  "  Thurloe,  vii.  573. 

accession,    the   former   writes   to  Henry  3  Lord   Fauconberg   says,   "The   corn- 

Cromwell,  ;>  It  hath  pleased  God  hitherto  monwealth  men  in  the  parliament  were 

to  give  his  highness  your  brother  a  very  very   numerous,    and    beyond    measure 

easy  and    peaceable    entrance  upon  his  bold,  but  more  than  doubly  overbalanced 

government.     There   is   not  a   dog   that,  by  the  sober  party ;  so  that,  though  this 

wags  his  tongue,  so  great  a  calm  we  are  make  their  result  slow,  we  see  no  great 

in.  ...  But  I  must  needs  acquaint  your  cause  as  yet  to  fear.1'    P.  612.    And  Dr. 

excellency   that   there   are    some    secret  Barwick,  a  correspondent    of  lord  (Jlar- 

murmurings  in  the  army,  as  if  his  high-  endon,  tells  him  the  republicans  were  the 

ness  were  not  general  of  the  army  as  his  minority,  but  all  speakers,  zealous  and 

father  was,''  &c.     P.  374.     Here  was  the  diligent — it  was  likely  to  end  in  a  titu- 

secret :   the    officers    did   not  like  to  fall  lar  protector  without  militia  or  negative 

back  under  the  civil  power,  by  obeying  voice.     P.  615. 

one  who  was  not   a    soldier.     This  soon  According  to -a  letter  from  Allen  Bro- 

displayed   itself  openly;    and   lord  Fau-  derick    to  Hyde  (Clar.  St.  Pap.  iii.  443), 

conberg  thought    the  game  was  over  as  there  were  47  republicans,  from  100    to 

early  as  Sept.  28.     P.  413.      It  is  to  be  140    neuters    or    moderates     (including 

observed  that  Fauconberg  was  secretly  a  many  royalists)   and   170   court-lawyers 

or  officers. 


COMMONWEALTH.      RICHARD  CROMWELL'S  PARLIAMENT.      259 

scruple.1  But  upon  a  bill  being  offered  for  the  recognition 
of  Richard  as  the  undoubted  lord  protector  and  chief  magis 
trate  of  the  commonwealth,  they  made  a  stand  against  the 
word  recognize,  which  was  carried  with  difficulty,  and  caused 
him  the  mortification  of  throwing  out  the  epithet  undoubted.2 
They  subsequently  discussed  his  negative  voice  in  passing 
bills,  which  had  been  purposely  slurred  over  in  the  Petition 
and  Advice ;  but  now  everything  was  disputed.  The  thorny 
question  as  to  the  powers  and  privileges  of  the  other  house 
came  next  into  debate.  It  was  carried  by  177  to  113  to 
transact  business  with  them.  To  this  resolution  an  explana 
tion  was  added,  that  it  was  not  thereby  intended  to  exclude 
such  peers  as  had  been  faithful  to  the  parliament  from  their 
privilege  of  being  duly  summoned  to  be  members  of  that 
house.  The  court  supporting  this  not  impolitic,  but  logically 
absurd,  proviso,  which  confounded  the  ancient  and  modern 
systems  of  government,  carried  it  by  the  small  majority  of 
195  to  188.3  They  were  stronger  in  rejecting  an  important 
motion,  to  make  the  approbation  of  the  commons  a  prelim 
inary  to  their  transacting  business  with  the  persons  now 
sitting  in  the  other  house  as  a  house  of  parliament,  by  183 
voices  to  146.  But  the  opposition  succeeded  in  inserting 
the  words  "during  the  present  parliament,"  which  left  the 
matter  still  unsettled.4  The  sitting  of  the  Scotch  and  Irish 
members  was  also  unsuccessfully  opposed.  Upon  the  whole, 
the  court  party,  notwithstanding  this  coalition  of  very  hetero 
geneous  interests  against  them,  were  sufficiently  powerful  to 
disappoint  the  hopes  which  the  royalist  intriguers  had  enter 
tained.  A  strong  body  of  lawyers,  led  by  Maynard,  adhered 

i  Ludlow   tells   us   that   he  contrived  everything  else  that  might  tend  to  settle 

to  sit  in  the  house  without   taking   the  the  government.  (Jlar.  State  Papers,  411. 

oath,  and  that  some  others  did  the  same.  This  of  course  was  their  true  game. 

P.  619.  It  is  said  that,  Richard   pressing   the 

a  \Vhitelock,    Parliam.    History,  1530,  earl  of    Northumberland  to   sit   in    the 

1541.  other    house,   he  declined,   urging  that, 

a  The  numbers  are  differently,  but,  I  when  the  government   was    such   as  his 

suppose,  erroneously  stated  in  Thurloe,  predecessors  had  served  under,  he  would 

vii.  640.     It  is  said,  iu  a  pamphlet  of  the  serve  him  with  his  life  and  fortune.     Id. 

time,  that  this  clause  was  introduced  to  433. 

please  the  cavaliers,  who  acted  with  the  4  Parl.  Hist.     Journals,  27  Jan.  ;    14, 

court;  Somers  Tracts,  vi.  482.    Ludlow  18  Feb.  ;    1,  8,  21,   23,    28  March.     The 

seems  also   to  think   that  these   parties  names    of  the    tellers  in  these  divisions 

were  united  in  this  parliament  (p.  629) ;  show  the  connections  of  leading  individ- 

but  this  seems  not  very  probable,  and  is  uals  :    we  find  indifferently  presbyterian 

contrary  to  some  things  we  know.     Clar-  and  republican  names  for  the  minority, 

endon   had    advised    that   the    royalists  as    Fairfax,    Lambert,    Nevil,    Haslerig, 

should   try  to  get  into   parliament,  and  Townshend,  Booth, 
there  to  oppose  all  raising  of  money,  and 


260 


WALLINGFORD   HOUSE  CABAL. 


CHAP.  X. 


to  the  government,  which  was  supported  also  on  some  occa 
sions  by  a  part  of  the  presbyterian  interest,  or,  as  then  called, 
the  moderate  party  ;  and  Richard  would  probably  have  con- 
Thearmy  eluded  the  session  with  no  loss  of  power,  if  either 
overthrow  he  or  his  parliament  could  have  withstood  the 
more  formidable  cabal  of  Wallingford  House. 
This  knot  of  officers,  Fleetwood,  Desborough,  Berry,  Syden- 
ham,  being  the  names  most  known  among  them,  formed  a 
coalition  with  the  republican  faction,  who  despaired  of  any 
success  in  parliament.  The  dissolution  of  that  assembly  ^Yas 
the  main  article  of  this  league.  Alarmed  at  the  notorious 
caballing  of  the  officers,  the  commons  voted  that,  during  the 
sitting  of  the  parliament,  there  should  be  no  general  council, 
or  meeting  of  the  officers  of  the  army,  without  leave  of  the 
protector  and  of  both  houses.1  Such  a  vote  could  only  accel- 


i  Thei-e  seems  reason  to  believe  that 
Richard  would  have  met  with  more  sup 
port  both  in  the  house  and  among  the 
nation,  if  he  had  not  been  oppressed  by 
the  odium  of  some  of  his  father's  coun 
sellors.  A  general  indignation  was  felt 
at  those  who  had  condemned  men  to 
death  in  illegal  tribunals,  whom  the  re 
publicans  and  cavaliers  were  impatient 
to  bring  to  justice.  He  was  forced  also  to 
employ  and  to  screen  from  vengeance  his 
wise  and  experienced  secretary  Thurloe, 
master  of  all  the  secret  springs  that  had 
moved  his  father's  government,  but  ob 
noxious  from  the  share  he  had  taken  in 
illegal  and  arbitrary  measures.  Petitions 
were  presented  to  the  house  from  several 
who  had  been  committed  to  the  Tower 
upon  short  written  orders,  without  any 
formal  warrant  or  expressed  cause  of 
commitment.  In  the  case  of  one  of 
these,  Mr.  Portman,  the  house  resolved 
that  his  apprehension,  imprisonment,  and 
detention  in  the  Tower  was  illegal  and 
unjust  :  Journals,  26  Feb.  A  still  more 
flagrant  tyranny  was  that  frequently 
practised  by  Cromwell,  of  sending  persons 
disaffected  to  him  as  slaves  to  the  West 
Indies.  One  Mr.  Thomas  petitioned  the 
house  of  commons,  complaining  that  he 
had  been  thus  sold  as  a  slave.  A  member 
of  the  court  side  justified  it  on  the  score 
of  his  being  a  malignant.  Mujor-general 
Browne,  a  secret  royalist,  replied  that  he 
was  nevertheless  an  Englishman  and 
free-born.  Thurloe  had  the  presumption 
to  say  that  he  had  not  thought  to  live  to 
see  the  day  when  such  a  thing  as  this, 
so  justly  and  legally  done  by  lawful  au 
thority,  should  be  brought  before  parlia 
ment.  Vane  replied  that  he  did  not 


think  to  have  seen  the  day  when  free- 
born  Englishmen  should  be  sold  for  slaves 
by  such  an  arbitrary  government.  There 
were,  it  seems,  not  less  than  fifty  gentle 
men  sold  for  slaves  at  Barbadoes.  Claren 
don  State  Papers,  p.  447.  The  royalists 
had  planned  to  attack  Thurloe  for  some 
of  these  unjustifiable  proceedings,  which 
would  have  greatly  embarrassed  the  gov 
ernment.  Ibid.  423,  428.  They  hoped 
that  Richard  would  be  better  disposed 
toward  the  king,  if  his  three  advisers, 
St.  John,  Thurloe,  and  Pierpoint,  all  im 
placable  to  their  cause,  could  be  removed. 
But  they  were  not  strong  enough  in  the 
house.  If  Richard,  however,  had  con 
tinued  in  power,  he  must  probably  have 
sacrificed  Thurloe  to  public  opinion  ;  and 
the  consciousness  of  this  may  have  led 
this  minister  to  advise  the  dissolution  of 
the  parliament,  and  perhaps  to  betray  his 
master,  from  the  suspicion  of  which  he  is 
not  free. 

It  ought  to  be  remarked  what  an  out 
rageous  proof  of  Cromwell's  tyranny  is 
exhibited  in  this  note.  Many  writers 
glide  favorably  over  his  administration, 
or  content  themselves  with  treating  it  as 
an  usurpation  which  can  furnish  no  prec 
edent,  and  consequently  does  not  merit 
particular  notice  ;  but  the  effect  of  this 
generality  is,  that  the  world  forms  an 
imperfect  notion  of  the  degree  of  arbi 
trary  power  which  he  exerted  ;  and  I 
believe  there  are  many  who  take  Charles 
I.,  and  even  Charles  II..  for  greater 
violators  of  the  laws  than  the  protector. 
Neal  and  Harris  are  full  of  this  dishon 
est  bigotry.  [Since  this  note  was  first 
printed  the  publication  of  Burton's  Di 
ary  has  confirmed  its  truth,  which  had 


COMMONWEALTH.       LONG   PARLIAMENT   RESTORED.  261 

erate  their  own  downfall.  Three  days  afterwards  the  junto 
of  Wallingford  House  insisted  with  Richard  that  he  should 
dissolve  parliament ;  to  which,  according  to  the  advice  of 
most  of  his  council,  and  perhaps  by  an  overruling  necessity, 
he  gave  his  consent.1  This  was  immediately  followed  by  a 
declaration  of  the  council  of  officers,  calling  back  the  long 
parliament,  such  as  it  had  been  expelled  in  1653,  to  those 
seats  which  had  been  filled  meanwhile  by  so  many  transient 
successors.2 

It  is  not  in  general  difficult  for  an  armed  force  to  destroy  a 
government  ;  but  something  else  than  the  sword  is  required 
to  create  one.  The  military  conspirators  were  destitute  of 
any  leader  whom  they  woidd  acknowledge,  or  who  had  ca 
pacity  to  go  through  the  civil  labors  of  sovereignty;  Lambert 
alone  excepted,  who  was  lying  in  wait  for  another  occasion. 
They  might  have  gone  on  with  Richard  as  a  pageant  of 
nominal  authority.  But  their  new  allies,  the  commonwealth's 
men,  insisted  upon  restoring  the  long  parliament.3  It  seemed 
now  the  policy,  as  much  as  duty,  of  the  officers  to  obey  that 
civil  power  they  had  set  up  ;  for  to  rule  ostensibly  was,  as  I 
have  just  observed,  an  impracticable  scheme.  But  the  con 
tempt  they  felt  for  their  pretended  masters,  and  even  a  sort 
of  necessity  arising  out  of  the  blindness  and  passion  of  that 

rashly  been  called  in  question  by  a  pas-  goldsby,  lord  Fauconberg,  and  others, 
sionate  and  prejudiced  reviewer.  See  vol.  who  were  suspected  to  be  for  the  king, 
iv.  p.  253,  &c.]  Life  of  Charles  JI.,  194.  He  afterwards, 
l  Richard  advised  with  Broghill,  Fi-  p.  203,  quotes  Calamy's  Life  of  Howe, 
ennes,  Tlmrloe.  and  others  of  his  council,  for  the  assertion  that  Richard  stood  out 
all  of  whom,  except  \Vhitelock,  who  in-  against  his  council,  with  Tlmrloe  alone, 
forms  us  of  this,  were  in  favor  of  the  that  the  parliament  should  not  be  dis- 
dissolution.  This  caused,  he  says,  much  solved.  This  is  very  unlikely, 
trouble  to  honest  men:  the  cavaliers  and  2  This  was  carried  against  the  previous 
republicans  rejoiced  at  it;  many  of  Rich-  question  by  lb'3  to  87.  Journals,  Abr. 
ard?s  council  were  his  enemies.  1*.  177.  111.  Some  of  the  protector's  friends  were 
The  army  at  first  intended  to  raise  inon-  alarmed  at  so  high  a  vote  against  the 
ey  by  their  own  authority;  but  this  was  army,  -which  did  in  fact  bring  the  matter 
deemed  impossible,  and  it  was  resolved  to  a  crisis.  Thurloe,  vii.  659,  et  post, 
to  recall  the  long  parliament.  Lam-  3  The  army,  according  to  Ludlow,  had 
bert  and  llaslerig  accordingly  met  Leu-  not  made  up  their  minds  how  to  act  after 
thall,  who  was  persuaded  to  act  again  the  dissolution  of  the  parliament,  and 
as  speaker ;  though,  if  Ludlow  is  right,  some  were  inclined  to  go  on  with  Rich- 
against  his  will,  being  now  connected  ard  ;  but  the  republican  party,  who  had 
with  the  court,  and  in  the  pretended  coalesced  with  that  faction  of  officers 
house  of  lords.  The  parliament  now  con-  who  took  their  denomination  from  \Val- 
sisted  of  91  members.  Pad.  Hist.  1547.  lingford  House,  their  place  of  meeting, 
Harris  quotes  a  manuscript  journal  of  insisted  on  the  restoration  of  the  old  par- 
Montague,  afterwards  earl  of  Sandwich,  liauient;  though  they  agreed  to  make 
wherein  it  is  said  that  Richard's  great  some  provision  for  Richard.  Memoirs, 
error  was  to  dissolve  the  parliament,  and  pp.  635-646.  Accordingly  it  was  voted 
that  he  might  have  overruled  the  army  to  give  him  an  income  of  10,OUU/.  per 
if  he  would  himself  have  employed  lu-  annum.  Journals,  July  16. 


262  IMPOSSIBILITY   OF   ESTABLISHING          CHAP.  X. 

little  oligarchy,  drove  them  to  a  step  still  more  ruinous  to 
Expelled  their  cause  than  that  of  deposing  Richard,  the  ex- 
agaiu,  pulsion  once  more  of  that  assembly,  now  worn  out 

and  ridiculous  in  all  men's  eyes,  yet  seeming  a  sort  of  frail 
protection  against  mere  anarchy  and  the  terror  of  the  sword. 
Lambert,  the  chief  actor  in  this  last  act  of  violence,  and  in 
deed  many  of  the  rest,  might  plead  the  right  of  self-defence. 
The  prevailing  faction  in  the  parliament,  led  by  Haslerig,  a 
bold  and  headstrong  man,  perceived  that,  with  very  inferior 
pretensions,  Lambert  was  aiming  to  tread  in  the  steps  of 
Cromwell ;  and,  remembering  their  neglect  of  opportunities, 
as  they  thought,  in  permitting  the  one  to  overthrow  them, 
fancied  that  they  would  anticipate  the  other.  Their  intem 
perate  votes  cashiering  Lambert,  Desborough,  and  other 
officers,  brought  on,  as  every  man  of  more  prudence  than 
Haslerig  must  have  foreseen,  an  immediate  revolution  that 
crushed  once  more  their  boasted  commonwealth.1  They 
and  again  revived  again  a  few  months  after,  not  by  any 
exertion  of  the  people,  who  hated  alike  both 
parties,  in  their  behalf,  but  through  the  disunion  of  their  real 
masters,  the  army,  and  vented  the  impotent  and  injudicious 
rage  of  a  desperate  faction  on  all  who  had  not  gone  every 
length  on  their  side,  till  scarce  any  man  of  eminence  was 
left  to  muster  under  the  standard  of  Haslerig  and  his  little 
knot  of  associates.'2 

I  can  by  no  means  agree  with  those  who  find  in  the  char 
acter  of  the  English  nation  some  absolute  incom- 
bSuyof'         patibility  with  a  republican  constitution  of  govern- 
estabiishing     ment.     Under  favoring  circumstances,  it  seems  to 

a  republic.  „    .  -..f.         ,  ,.  .    , 

me  not  at  all  incredible  that  such  a  polity  might 

i  Journals,  Sept.  23,  et  post.     White-  and  in  whom  liberality  seemed  to  be  a 

lock,  683.      Parl.  Hist.  1562.      Thurloe,  vice.     Yet,  to   do   him  justice,   I   must 

vii.   703,  et  post.     Ludlow's  account  of  acknowledge  that  I  am  under  no  man- 

this  period  is  the  most  interesting1  part  ner  of  doubt  concerning   the  rectitude 

of  his  Memoirs.     The  chief  officers,  it  ap-  and  sincerity  of  his  intentions."    P.  718. 

pears  from  his  narrative,  were  soon  dis-  Ludlow  gave   some   offence   to   the   hot- 

gusted  with  their  republican  allies,  and  headed  republicans  by  his  half  compli- 

"  behaved  with  all  imaginable  perverse-  ance  with   the   army,  and  much  disap- 

ness  and  insolence  •'   in   the  council  of  proved    the    proceedings    they    adopted 

state,  whenever  they  came  there,  which  after  their  second  restoration  in  Decem- 

was   but  seldom,  scrupling   the  oath  to  ber,  1659,  against  Vane  and  others.     P. 

be   true   to   the   Commonwealth  against  800.      Yet,   though    nominated  on    the 

Charles  Stuart  or  any  other  person.     P.  committee  of  safety,   on   the  expulsion 

657.     He  censures,  however,  the  violence  of  the  parliament  in  October,  he  never 

of   Haslerig,    "a  man  of  a  disobliging  sat  on  it,  as  Vane  and  Whitelock  did. 

temper,    sour    and    morose    of    temper,  ~  Journals,  and  other  authorities  above 

liable  to  be   transported  with    passion,  cited. 


COMMOS WEALTH.  A  REPUBLIC.  2G3 

have  existed  for  many  ages  in  great  prosperity,  and  without 
violent  convulsion.  For  the  English  are,  as  a  people,  little 
subject  to  those  bursts  of  passion  which  inflame  the  more 
imaginative  multitude  of  southern  climates,  and  render  them 
both  apt  for  revolutions  and  incapable  of  conducting  them. 
IS^or  are  they  again  of  that  sluggish  and  stationary  temper 
which  chokes  all  desire  of  improvement,  and  even  all  zeal 
for  freedom  and  justice,  through  which  some  free  govern 
ments  have  degenerated  into  corrupt  oligarchies.  The  most 
conspicuously  successful  experiment  of  republican  institutions 
(and  those  iar  more  democratical  than,  according  to  the  gen 
eral  theory  of  politics,  could  be  reconciled  with  perfect  tran 
quillity)  has  taken  place  in  a  people  of  English  original ;  and 
though  much  must  here  be  ascribed  to  the  peculiarly  for 
tunate  situation  of  the  nation  to  which  I  allude,  we  can 
hardly  avoid  giving  some  weight  to  the  good  sense  and  well- 
balanced  temperament  which  have  come  in  their  inheritance 
with  our  laws  and  our  language.  But  the  establishment  of 
free  commonwealths  depends  much  rather  on  temporary 
causes,  the  influence  of  persons  and  particular  events,  and 
all  those  intricacies  in  the  course  of  Providence  which  we 
term  accident,  than  on  any  general  maxims  that  can  become 
the  basis  of  prior  calculation.  In  the  year  1 G59  it  is  mani 
fest  that  no  idea  could  be  more  chimerical  than  that  of  a 
republican  settlement  in  England.  The  name,  never  familiar 
or  venerable  in  English  ears,  was  grown  infinitely  odious  : 
it  was  associated  with  the  tyranny  of  ten  years,  the  selfish 
rapacity  of  the  Rump,  the  hypocritical  despotism  of  Crom 
well,  the  arbitrary  sequestrations  of  committee-men,  the 
iniquitous  decimations  of  military  prefects,  the  sale  of  British 
citizens  for  slavery  in  the  West  Indies,  the  blood  of  some 
shed  on  the  scaffold  without  legal  trial,  the  tedious  imprison 
ment  of  many  with  denial  of  the  habeas  corpus,  the  exclu 
sion  of  the  ancient  gentry,  the  persecution  of  the  Anglican 
church,  the  bacchanalian  rant  of  sectaries,  the  morose  pre- 
ciseness  of  puritans,  the  extinction  of  the  frank  and  cordial 
joyousness  of  the  national  character.  Were  the  people 
again  to  endure  the  mockery  of  the  good  old  cause,  as  the 
commonwealth's  men  affected  to  style  the  interests  of  their 
little  faction,  and  be  subject  to  Lambert's  notorious  want  of 
principle,  or  to  Vane's  contempt  of  ordinances  (a  godly  mode 
of  expressing  the  same  thing),  or  to  Haslerig's  fury,  or  to 


264  ROYALISTS   UNITE  CHAP.  X. 

Harrison's  fanaticism,  or  to  the  fancies  of  those  lesser 
schemers  who,  in  this  utter  confusion  and  abject  state  of 
their  party,  were  amusing  themselves  with  plans  of  perfect 
commonwealths,  and  debating  whether  there  should  be  a 
senate  as  well  as  a  representation ;  whether  a  fixed  number 
should  go  out  or  not  by  rotation  ;  and  all  those  details  of 
political  mechanism  so  important  in  the  eyes  of  theorists  ?  1 
Every  project  of  this  description  must  have  wanted  what 
alone  could  give  it  either  the  pretext  of  legitimate  existence 
or  the  chance  of  permanency,  popular  consent ;  the  repub 
lican  party,  if  we  exclude  those  who  would  have  had  a  pro 
tector,  and  those  fanatics  who  expected  the  appearance  of 
Jesus  Christ,  was  incalculably  small ;  not,  perhaps,  amount 
ing  in  the  whole  nation  to  more  than  a  few  hundred  persons. 
The  little  court  of  Charles  at  Brussels  watched  with 
intrigues  trembling  hope  those  convulsive'  struggles  of  their 
of  the  enemies.  During  the  protectorship  of  Oliver  their 

best  chance  appeared  to  be,  that  some  of  the  numer 
ous  schemes  for  his  assassination  might  take  effect.  Their 
correspondence  indeed,  especially  among  the  presbyterian  or 
neutral  party,  became  more  extensive  ; 2  but  these  men  were 
habitually  cautious ;  and  the  marquis  of  Ormond,  who  went 
over  to  England  in  the  beginning  of  1G58,  though  he  re 
ported  the  disaffection  to  be  still  more  universal  than  he  had 
expected,  was  forced  to  add  that  there  was  little  prospect  of 
a  rising  until  foreign  troops  should  be  landed  in  some  part 
of  the  country,  an  aid  which  Spain  had  frequently  promised, 
but,  with  an  English  fleet  at  sea,  could  not  very  easily  fur 
nish.3  The  death  of  their  puissant  enemy  brightened  the 
visions  of  the  royalists.  Though  the  apparent  peaceableness 
of  Richard's  government  gave  them  some  mortification,  they 
continued  to  spread  their  toils  through  zealous  emissaries, 
and  found  a  very  general  willingness  to  restore  the  ancient 
They  unite  constitution  under  its  hereditary  sovereign.  Be- 
with  the  sides  the  cavaliers,  who,  though  numerous  and 
EbnV.  ardent,  were  impoverished  and  suspected,  the 

1  The  Rota  Club,  as  it  was  called,  was  of  Ormond  to  Hyde  about  this  time  he 
composed,     chiefly    at     least,    of    these  seems  to  have  seen  into  the  king's  char- 
dealers  in  new  constitutions,  which  were  acter,  and  speaks  of  him  severely  :    "  I 
debated  in  due  form.      Harrington  was  fear  his   immoderate  delight  in   empty, 
one  of  the  most  conspicuous.  effeminate,  and  vulgar  conversations,  is 

2  Thurloe.  vi.  579.      Clarendon   State  become  an  irresistible   part   of   his   na- 
Papers.  391.  395.  ture,"  &c.     Clarendon  State  Papers,  iii. 

3  Carte's  'Letters,  ii.  118.     In  a  letter  387. 


COMMONWEALTH.       WITH  PRESBYTERIANS.  265 

chief  presbyterians,  lords  Fairfax  and  Willoughby,  the 
earls  of  Manchester  and  Denbigh,  sir  William  Waller, 
sir  George  Booth,  sir  Ashley  Cooper,  Mr.  Popham  of 
Somerset,  Mr.  Howe  of  Gloucester,  sir  Horatio  Townshend 
of  Norfolk,  with  more  or  less  of  zeal  and  activity,  pledged 
themselves  to  the  royal  cause.1  Lord  Fauconberg,  a  royalist 
by  family,  who  had  married  a  daughter  of  Cromwell,  under 
took  the  important  office  of  working  on  his  brothers-in-law, 
Richard  and  Henry,  whose  position,  in  respect  to  the  army 
and  republican  party,  was  so  hazardous.  It  seems,  in  fact, 
that  Richard,  even  during  his  continuance  in  power,  had  not 
refused  to  hear  the  king's  agents,2  and  hopes  were  enter 
tained  of  him  ;  yet  at  that  time  even  he  could  not  reasonably 
be  expected  to  abandon  his  apparent  interests ;  but  soon  after 
his  fall,  while  his  influence,  or  rather  that  of  his  father's 
memory,  was  still  supposed  considerable  with  Montagu, 
Monk,  and  Lockhart,  they  negotiated  with  him  to  procure 
the  accession  of  those  persons,  and  of  his  brother  Henry,  for 
a  pension  of  20,000/.  a  year  and  a  title.8  It  soon  appeared, 
however,  that  those  prudent  veterans  of  revolution  would  not 
embark  under  such  a  pilot,  and  that  Richard  was  not  worth 
purchasing  on  the  lowest  terms.  Even  Henry  Cromwell, 
with  whom  a  separate  treaty  had  been  carried  on,  and  who 
is  said  to  have  determined  at  one  time  to  proclaim  the  king 
at  Dublin,  from  want  of  courage,  or,  as  is  more  probable,  of 

1  Clarendon   Papers,  391,  418.  460,  et  civil  government,  because  they  conceive 
post.      Towiishend,   a   young  man   who  his   principles   contrary    to   theirs.      lie 
seems  to  have  been  much  looked  up  to,  says  Thurloe  governs  Cromwell,  and  St. 
was  not,  in  fact,  a  presbyterian.  but  is  John  and  Pierpoint  govern  Thurloe  ;  and 
reckoned  among   them  as   not   being  a  therefore   it   is  not   likely  he  will  think 
cavalier,  having  come  of  age  since  the  himself  in  danger  till  these  tell  him  so, 
war,  and  his  family  neutral.  nor  seek  a  diversion  of  it  but  by  their 

2  This  curious  fact  appears  for  the  first  counsels."      Feb.    10,    1659.      These   ill- 
time,  I  believe,  in  the  Clarendon  State  grounded  hopes  of  Richard's  accession  to 
Papers,  unless  it  is  anywhere  intimated  their  cause  appear  in  several  other  letters, 
in  Carte's  collection  of  the  Ormond  let-  and  even  Hyde  seems  to  have  given  in  to 
ters.     In  the   former  collection  we  find  them,  434,  454,  &c.     Broderick,  another 
several  allusions  to  it ;   the  first  is  in  a  active  emissary  of  the  royalists,  fancied 
letter  from  Rumbold,  a  royalist  emissary,  that  the  three  above  mentioned  would 
to  Hyde,  dated  Dec.  2.  1658,  p.  421;  from  restore  the  king  if  they  dared,  477  ;  but 
which  I  collect  lord  Fauconberg's  share  this  is  quite  unlikely. 

in  this  intrigue  ;  which  is  also  confirmed        3  P.  469.     This  was  carried  on  througli 

by  a  letter  of  Mordaunt  to  the  king,  in  colonel  Henry  Cromwell,  his  cousin.     It 

p.  423.     "The  lord  Falcon  bridge  protests  is  said  that  Richard  had  not  courage  to 

that  Cromwell  is  so  remiss  a  person  that  sign  the  letters   to  Monk  and  his  other 

he  cannot  play  his  own  game,  much  less  friends,  which   he  afterwards   repented, 

another  man's,  and  is  thereby  discour-  491.     The   intrigues   still  went  on   with 

aged  from  acting  in  business,  having  also  him  for  a  little  longer.    This  was  in  May, 

many  enemies  who  oppose   his  gaining  1659. 
either  power  or  interest  in  the  army  or 


2G6  CONSPIRACY   OF   1659.  CHAP.  X. 

seriousness  in  what  must  have  seemed  so  unnatural  an  un 
dertaking,  submitted  quietly  to  the  vote  of  parliament  that 
deprived  him  of  the  command  of  Ireland.1 

The  conspiracy,  if  indeed  so  general  a  concert  for  the  res- 
Conspiracy  toration  of  ancient  laws  and  liberties  ought  to  have 
of  1659.  so  equivocal  an  appellation,  became  ripe  in  the 
summer  of  1G59.  The  royalists  were  to  appear  in  arms  in 
different  quarters,  several  principal  towns  to  be  seized  ;  but, 
as  the  moment  grew  nigh,  the  courage  of  most  began  to  fail. 
Twenty  years  of  depression  and  continual  failure  mated  the 
spirits  of  the  cavaliers.  The  shade  of  Cromwell  seemed  to 
hover  over  and  protect  the  wreck  of  his  greatness.  Sir 
George  Booth,  almost  alone,  rose  in  Cheshire  ;  every  other 
scheme,  intended  to  be  executed  simultaneously,  failing 
through  the  increased  prudence  of  those  concerned,  or  the 
precautions  taken  by  the  government  on  secret  intelligence 
of  the  plots  ;  and  Booth,  thus  deserted,  made  less  resistance 
to  Lambert  than  perhaps  was  in  his  power.2  This  discom 
fiture,  of  course,  damped  the  expectations  of  the  king's 
party.  The  presbyterians  thought  themselves  ill-used  by 
their  new  allies,  though  their  own  friends  had  been  almost 
equally  cautious.8  Sir  Richard  Willis,  an  old  cavalier,  and 
in  all  the  secrets  of  their  conspiracy,  was  detected  in  being 
a  spy  both  of  Cromwell  and  of  the  new  government :  a 
discovery  which  struck  consternation  into  the  party,  who 
could  hardly  trust  any  one  else  with  greater  security.4  In 
a  less  favorable  posture  of  affairs  these  untoward  circum 
stances  might  have  ruined  Charles's  hopes ;  they  served, 
as  it  was,  to  make  it  evident  that  he  must  look  to  some 
more  efficacious  aid  than  a  people's  good  wishes  for  his 
restoration. 

The  royalists  in  England,  who  played  so  deep  a  stake  on 
the  king's  account,  were  not  unnaturally  desirous  that  he 

1  Clarendon  State  Papers,  434,  500,  et  ceived  that  by  extending  the  basis  of  the 
post.      Thurloe,   vi.   686.      See  also    an  coalition  they  should  lose  all  chance  of 
enigmatical  letter   to    Henry   Cromwell,  indemnity  for  their  own  sufferings  ;  be- 
629,  which  certainly  hints  at  his  union  sides  which,  their  timidity  and  irresolu- 
with  the  king  ;  and  Carte's  Letters,  ii.  tiou  are  manifest  in   all   the  Clarendon 
293.  correspondence  at  this  period.     See  par- 

2  Clar.  State  Papers,  552,  556,  &c.  ticularly  491,  520. 

3  Clarendon  confesses,  Life,  p.  20,  that  *  Willis  had  done  all  in  his  power  to 
the  cavaliers  disliked  this  whole  intrigue  obstruct  the  rising.     Clarendon  was  very 
with  the  presbyterians,  which  was  plan-  slow  in  believing  this  treachery,  of  which 
ned  by  Mordaunt,  the  most  active  and  he  had  at  length  conclusive  proofs.     552, 
intelligent  agent  that  the  king  possessed  562. 

m  England.    The  former,  doubtless,  per- 


COMMONWEALTH.         AFFAIRS   OF   CHARLES.  267 

should  risk  something  in  the  game,  and  continually  pressed 
that  either  he  or  one  of  his  brothers  would  land  on  the 
coast.  His  standard  would  become  a  rallying-point  for  the 
well-affected,  and  create  such  a  demonstration  of  public  sen 
timent  as  would  overthrow  the  present  unstable  government. 
But  Charles,  not  by  nature  of  a  chivalrous  temper,  shrunk 
from  an  enterprise  which  was  certainly  very  hazardous,  un 
less  he  could  have  obtained  a  greater  assistance  of  troops 
from  the  Low  Countries  than  was  to  be  hoped.1  Pie  was 
as  little  inclined  to  permit  the  duke  of  York's  engaging  in 
it,  on  account  of  the  differences  that  had  existed  between 
them,  and  his  knowledge  of  an  intrigue  that  was  going  for 
ward  in  England,  principally  among  the  catholics,  but  with 
the  mischievous  talents  of  the  duke  of  Buckingham  at  its 
head,  to  set  up  the  duke  instead  of  himself.2  lie  gave, 
however,  fair  words  to  his  party,  and  continued  for  some 
time  on  the  French  coast,  as  if  waiting  for  his  opportunity. 
It  was  in  great  measure,  as  I  suspect,  to  rid  himself  of 
this  importunity  that  he  set  out  on  his  long  and  very  need 
less  journey  to  the  foot  of  the  Pyrenees.  Thither  the  two 
monarchs  of  France  and  Spain,  wearied  with  twenty  years 
of  hostility  without  a  cause  and  without  a  purpose,  had  sent 
their  ministers  to  conclude  the  celebrated  treaty  which  bears 
the  name  of  those  mountains.  Charles  had  long  cherished 
hopes  that  the  first  fruits  of  their  reconciliation  would  be  a 
joint  armament  to  place  him  on  the  English  throne ;  many 
of  his  adherents  almost  despaired  of  any  other  means  of 

1  Clar.  Papers,  514,  530,  536,  543.  affronts  from  that  party  ;   but  upon  a 

2  Clarendon  Papers,  425,  427,  458,  462,  finer  spun  design  of  setting  up   the  in- 
475,   526,   57(J.     It  is  evident  that   the  terest  of  the  duke  of  York  against  the 
catholics  had    greater   hopes    from    the  king;    in  which  design  I   fear  you  will 
duke  than  from  the  king,  and  considered  find  confederated    the   duke   of   Bucks, 
the  former  as  already  their  own.     A  re-  who  perhaps  may  draw  away  with  him 
markable  letter  of  Morley  to  Hyde,  April  lord  1'airfax,  the  presbyteriaus,  levellers, 
24,  1659,  p.  458,    shows   the   suspicious  and  many  catholics.     I  am  apt  to  think 
already  entertained  of  him  by  the  writer  these  things  are  not  transacted  without 
iu  point  of  religion  ;  and  Hyde  is  plainly  the  privity  of  the  queen  ;  and  1  pray  God 
not  free  from  apprehension  that  he  might  that  they  have  not  an  ill  influence  upon 
favor    the    scheme    of   supplanting    his  your  affairs  in  France. "     475.     Bucking- 
brother.     The  intrigue  might  have  gone  ham  was  surmised  to  have  been  formally 
a  great  way,  though  we  may  now  think  reconciled  to  the  church  of  Rome.  427. 
it  probable  that   their  alarm  magnified  Some  supposed  that  he,  with  his  friend 
the  danger.     •'  Let  me  tell  you,"  says  sir  Wildman,  were  for  a  republic.    But  such 
Antony   Ashley   Cooper    in   a   letter    to  men  are  for  nothing  but  the  intrigue  of 
Hyde,    "  that  Wildman  is  as  much  an  the  moment.     These   projects   of  Buck- 
enemy  now  to  the  king  as  he  was  before  ingham  to  set  up  the  duke  of  York  are 
a  seeming  friend;   yet  not  upon  the  ac-  hinted  at  in  a  pamphlet  by  Shaftesbury 
count  of  a  commonwealth,  for  his  ambi-  or  one  of  his  party,  written  about  1680. 
tioii  meets  with  every-day  repulses  and  Somers  Tracts,  viil.  342. 


268  FLEETWOOD  AND  LAMBERT.  CHAP.  X. 

restoration.  But  Lewis  de  Haro  was  a  timid  statesman, 
and  Mazarin  a  cunning  one  :  there  was  little  to  expeet  from 
their  generosity,  and  the  price  of  assistance  might  probably 
be  such  as  none  but  desperate  and  unscrupulous  exiles  would 
offer  and  the  English  nation  would  with  unanimous  indigna 
tion  reject.  It  was  well  for  Charles  that  he  contracted  no 
public  engagement  with  these  foreign  powers,  whose  coop 
eration  must  either  have  failed  of  success  or  have  placed 
on  his  head  a  degraded  and  unstable  crown.  The  full  tol 
eration  of  popery  in  England,  its  establishment  in  Ireland, 
its  profession  by  the  sovereign  and  his  family,  the  surrender 
of  Jamaica,  Dunkirk,  and  perhaps  the  Norman  Islands,  were 
conditions  on  which  the  people  might  have  thought  the  resto 
ration  of  the  Stuart  line  too  dearly  obtained. 

It  was  a  more  desirable  object  for  the  king  to  bring  over, 
if  possible,  some  of  the  leaders  of  the  commonwealth.  Ex 
cept  Vane,  accordingly,  and  the  decided  republicans,  there 
was  hardly  any  man  of  consequence  whom  his  agents  did 
not  attempt  to  gain,  or,  at  least,  from  whom  they  did  not  en 
tertain  hopes.  Three  stood  at  this  time  conspicuous  above 
the  rest,  not  all  of  them  in  ability,  but  in  apparent  power 
of  serving  the  royal  cause  by  their  defection  —  Fleetwood, 
Lambert,  and  Monk.  The  first  had  discovered,  as  far  as 
his  understanding  was  capable  of  perceiving  anything,  that 
he  had  been  the  dupe  of  more  crafty  men  in  the  cabals 
against  Richard  Cromwell,  whose  complete  fall  from  power 
he  had  neither  designed  nor  foreseen.  In  pique  and  vexa 
tion  he  listened  to  the  overtures  of  the  royalist  agents,  and 
sometimes,  if  we  believe  their  assertions,  even  promised  to 
declare  for  the  king.1  But  his  resolutions  were  not  to  be 
relied  upon,  nor  was  his  influence  likely  to  prove  consider 
able  ;  though,  from  his  post  of  lieutenant-general  of  the 
army,  and  long-accustomed  precedence,  lie  obtained  a  sort 
of  outward  credit  far  beyond  his  capacity.  Lambert  was  of 
a  very  different  stamp  :  eager,  enterprising,  ambitious,  but 

1  Hyde  writes  to  the  duke  of  Ormoni,  the  honest  thoughts  which  some  time 
"  I  pray  inform  the  king  that  Fleetwood  possess  him,"  592  (Oct.  31).  and  that 
makes  great  professions  of  being  con-  Manchester,  Pophani,  and  others,  tried 
verted,  and  of  a  resolution  to  serve  the  what  they  could  do  with  Fleetwood :  hut, 
king  upon  the  first  opportunity."  Oct.  "  though  they  left  him  with  good  resolu- 
11,  1659.  Carte's  Letters,  ii.  231.  See  tions,  they  were  so  weak  as  not  to  con- 
Clarendon  State  Papers,  551  (Sept.  2)  tinue  longer  than  the  next  temptation." 
and  577.  But  it  is  said  afterwards  that  635  (Dec.  27). 
he  had  "  not  courage  enough  to  follow 


COMMONWEALTH.        INTERFERENCE   OF   MONK.  2G9 

destitute  of  the  qualities  that  inspire  respect  or  confidence. 
Far  from  the  weak  enthusiasm  of  Fleetwood,  he  gave  of 
fence  by  displaying  less  show  of  religion  than  the  temper 
of  his  party  required,  and  still  more  by  a  current  suspicion 
that  his  secret  faith  was  that  of  the  church  of  Rome,  to 
which  the  partiality  of  the  catholics  towards  him  gave  sup 
port.1  The  crafty  unfettered  ambition  of  Lambert  rendered 
it  not  unlikely  that,  finding  his  o\vn  schemes  of  sovereignty 
impracticable,  he  would  make  terms  with  the  king;  and 
there  were  not  wanting  those  who  recommended  the  latter 
to  secure  his  services  by  the  offer  of  marrying  his  daughter,2 
but  it  does  not  appear  that  any  actual  overtures  were  made 
on  either  side. 

There  remained  one  man  of  eminent  military  reputation, 
in  the  command  of  a  considerable  insulated  army,  interference 
to  whom  the  royalists  anxiously  looked  with  alter-  of  Mouk- 
nate  hope  and  despondency.  Monk's  early  connections  were 
with  the  king's  party,  among  wrhom  he  had  been  defeated 
and  taken  prisoner  by  Fairfax  at  Namptwich.  Yet  even  in 
this  period  of  his  life  he  had  not  escaped  suspicions  of  dis 
affection,  which  he  effaced  by  continuing  in  prison  till  the 
termination  of  the  war  in  England.  He  then  accepted  a 
commission  from  the  parliament  to  serve  against  the  Irish, 
and  now,  falling  entirely  into  his  new  line  of  politics,  became 
strongly  attached  to  Cromwell,  by  whom  he  was  left  in 
the  military  government,  or  rather  viceroyalty,  of  Scotland, 
which  he  had  reduced  to  subjection,  and  kept  under  with  a 
vigorous  hand.  Charles  had  once,  it  is  said,  attempted  to 
seduce  him  by  a  letter  from  Cologne,  which  he  instantly 
transmitted  to  the  protector.3  Upon  Oliver's  death  he  wrote 
a  very  sensible  letter  to  Richard  Cromwell,  containing  his 

i  Clarendon  State  Papers,  688.  Carte's  cini,  whom  Charles  had  asked  for  in 

Letters,  ii.  225.  vain. 

-  Lord  Hatton,  an  old  royalist.  Rug-  a  Biogr.  Brit.,  art.  MOXK.  The  royal- 

gested  this  humiliating  proposition  in  ists  continued  to  entertain  hopes  of  him. 

terms  scarcely  less  so  to  the  heir  of  Cerdic  especially  after  Oliver's  death.  Claren- 

and  Fergus.  '  '•  The  race  is  a  very  good  don  Papers,  iii.  393,  395.  396.  In  a  sen- 

gmtUmaii's  family,  and  kings  have  con-  sible  letter  of  Colepepper  to  Hyde,  Sept. 

descended  to  marry  subjects.  The  lady  20,  1658,  he  points  out  Monk  as  able 

is  pretty,  of  an  extraordinary  sweetness  alone  to  restore  the  king,  and  not  ab- 

of  disposition,  and  very  virtuously  and  solutely  averse  to  it,  either  in  his  prin- 

ingenuously  disposed  ;  the  father  is  a  per-  ciples  or  affections ;  kept  hitherto  by  the 

son,  set  aside  his  unhappy  engagement,  vanity  of  adhering  to  his  professions,  and 

of  very  great  parts  and  noble  iucliiia-  by  his  affection  to  Cromwell,  the  latter 

tions."  Clarendon  State  Papers,  592.  whereof  is  dissolved  both  by  the  jeal- 

Yet,  after  all,  Miss  Lambert  was  hardly  ousies  he  entertained  of  him,  and  by  his 

more  a  mesalliance  than  Horteuse  Man-  death,  &c.  Id.  412. 


270  MONK'S   DISSIMULATION.  CHAP.  X. 

advice  for  the  government.  He  recommends  him  to  obtain 
the  affections  of  the  moderate  presbyterian  ministers,  who 
have  much  influence  over  the  people,  to  summon  to  his  house 
of  lords  the  wisest  and  most  faithful  of  the  old  nobility  and 
some  of  the  leading  gentry,  to  diminish  the  number  of  su 
perior  officers  in  the  army  by  throwing  every  two  regiments 
into  one,  and  to  take  into  his  council  as  his  chief  advisers 
"Whitelock,  St.  John,  lord  Broghill,  sir  Richard  Onslow,  Pier- 
point,  and  Thurloe.1  The  judiciousness  of  this  advice  is  the 
surest  evidence  of  its  sincerity,  and  must  leave  no  doubt  on 
our  minds  that  Monk  was  at  that  time  very  far  from  har 
boring  any  thoughts  of  the  king's  restoration. 

But  when,  through  the  force  of  circumstances  and  the  de- 
His  dissim-  ficicncies  in  the  young  protector's  capacity,  he  saw 
uiation.  fne  house  of  Cromwell  forever  fallen,  it  was  for 
Monk  to  consider  what  course  he  should  follow,  and  by  what 
means  the  nation  was  to  be  rescued  from  the  state  of  an 
archy  that  seemed  to  menace  it.  That  very  different  plans 
must  have  passed  through  his  mind  before  he  commenced  his 
march  from  Scotland,  it  is  easy  to  conjecture ;  but  at  what 
time  his  determination  was  finally  taken  we  cannot  certainly 
pronounce.2  It  would  be  the  most  honorable  supposition  to 

1  Thurloe,  vii.  387.    Monk  wrote  about    an  obscure  point  of  history,  which  will 
the  same  time  against  the  earl  of  Argyle,     easily  admit  of  different  opinions. 

as  not  a  friend  to  the  government :  p.  584.  The    story    told    by    Locke,   on    lord 

Two  years  afterwards  he  took  away  his  Shaftesbury's  authority,  that  Monk  had 

life  as  being  too  much  so.  agreed    with    the  French  ambassador  to 

2  If  the  account  of  his   chaplain,  Dr.  take  on  himself  the  government,  wherein 
Price,   republished    in   Maseres'   Tracts,  he  was  to  have  the  support  of  Mazarin, 
vol.  ii.,  be  worthy  of  trust.  Monk  gave  so  and  that  his  wife,  having  overheard  what 
much  encouragement  to  his    brother,  a  was  going  forward,  sent  notice  to  Shnftes- 
clergyman,  secretly  despatched    to  Scot-  bury,  who  was  thus  enabled  to  frustrate 
land    by  sir  John  Grenvil,  his  relation,  the    intrigue   (Locke's  Works,    iii.    456), 
in  June,  1659,  as  to  have    approved  sir  seems  to  have  been  confirmed  lately  by 
George  Booth's  insurrection,  and  to  have  Mr.   D'Israeli,   in  an   extract    from    the 
been  on  the  point  of  publishing  a  decla-  manuscript    memoirs     of     sir    Thomas 
ration  in  favor  of  it.     P.  718.     But  this  Browne  (Curiosities  of  Literature,  N.  S., 
is  flatly  in  contradiction  of  what  Claren-  vol.  ii.),  but  in  terms  so   nearly  resem- 
don  asserts,   that  the  general  not  only  bling  those    of  Locke,    that  it  may    be 
sent  away  his  brother  with  no  hopes,  but  suspected  of  being  merely  an  echo.     It 
threatened  to  hang  him  if  he  came  again  is  certain,  as  we  find  by  Phillips's   con- 
on  such  an  errand.     And,  in  fact,  if  any-  tinuation  of  Baker's  Chronicle  (said    to 
thing  so  favorable  as  what  Price  tells  us  be  assisted  in  this   part  by  sir  Thomas 
had  occurred,  the  king  could  not  fail  to  Clarges,    Monk's    brother-in-law),     that 
have  known  it.     See  Clarendon  State  Pa-  .Bourdeaux,  the  French  ambassador,  did 
pers,  iii.  543.      This  throws  some  suspi-  make  such  overtures  to  the  general,  who 
cion  on  Price's  subsequent  narrative  (so  absolutely  refused  to   enter  upon  them ; 
far  as  it  professes  to  relate  the  general's  but,  as  the  writer  admits,  received  a  visit 
intentions);  so   that  I  rely  far  less  on  it  from  the  ambassador  on   condition  that 
than  on  Monk's  own    behavior,   which  he  should  propose  nothing  in  relation  to 
seems  irreconcilable  with  his  professions  public  matters.     I  quote  from  Rennet's 
of  republican  principles.     It  is.  however,  Register,  85.    But,  according  to  my  pres- 


COMMONWEALTH.       MONK'S  DISSIMULATION.  271 

believe  that  he  was  sincere  in  those  solemn  protestations  of 
adherence  to  the  commonwealth  which  he  poured  forth,  as 
well  during  his  inarch  as  after  his  arrival  in  London  ;  till 
discovering,  at  length,  the  popular  zeal  for  the  king's  restora 
tion,  he  concurred  in  -a  change  which  it  would  have  been 
unwise,  and  perhaps  impracticable,  to  resist.  This,  however, 
seems  not  easily  reconcilable  to  Monk's  proceedings  in  new- 
modelling  his  army,  and  confiding  power,  both  in  Scotland 
and  England,  to  men  of  known  intentions  towards  royalty  ; 
nor  did  his  assurances  of  support  to  the  republican  party 
become  less  frequent  or  explicit  at  a  time  when  every  one 
must  believe  that  he  had  taken  his  resolution,  and  even  after 
he  had  communicated  with  the  king.  I  incline,  therefore, 
upon  the  whole,  to  believe  that  Monk,  not  accustomed  to 
respect  the  parliament,  and  incapable,  both  by  his  tempera 
ment  and  by  the  course  of  his  life,  of  any  enthusiasm  for 
the  name  of  liberty,  had  satisfied  himself  as  to  the  expe 
diency  of  the  king's  restoration  from  the  time  that  the  Crom- 
wells  had  sunk  below  his  power  to  assist  them,  though  his 
projects  were  still  subservient  to  his  own  security,  which  he 
was  resolved  not  to  forfeit  by  any  premature  declaration  or 
unsuccessful  enterprise.  If  the  coalition  of  cavaliers  and 
presbyterians  and  the  strong  bent  of  the  entire  nation  had 
not  convinced  this  wary  dissembler  that  he  could  not  fail  of 
success,  he  would  have  continued  true  to  his  professions  as 
the  general  of  a  commonwealth,  content  with  crushing  his 
rival  Lambert  and  breaking  that  fanatical  interest  which  he 
most  disliked.  That  he  aimed  at  such  a  sovereignty  as 
Cromwell  had  usurped  has  been  the  natural  conjecture  of 
many,  but  does  not  appear  to  me  either  warranted  by  any 
presumptive  evidence,  or  consonant  to  the  good  sense  and 
phlegmatic  temper  of  Monk. 

At  the  moment  when,  with  a  small  but  veteran  army  of 

ent   impression,    this    is    more   likely   to  house,  Feb.  21 ;  and  this  alleged  intrigue 

have  been  the  foundation  ofShaftesbury's  with  Mazarin  could  hardly  have  been  so 

story,  who  might  have  heard  from  Mrs.  early. 

Monk  the  circumstance  of  the  visit,  and  It  may  be  pdded  that  in  one  of  the 
conceived  suspicions  upon  it.  which  he  pamphlets  about  the  time  of  the  exclusion 
afterwards  turned  into  proofs.  It  was  bill,  written  by  Shaftesbury  himself,  or 
evidently  not  in  Monk's  power  to  have  one  of  his  party  (Somers  Tracts,  viii.  338), 
usurped  the  government  after  he  had  let  he  is  hinted  to  have  principally  brought 
the  royalist  inclinations  of  the  people  about  the  Restoration;  ''  without  whose 
show  themselves  ;  and  he  was  by  no  courage  and  dexterity  some  men,  the 
means  of  a  rash  character.  He  must  most  highly  rewarded,  had  done  other- 
have  taken  his  resolution  when  the  se-  wise  than  they  did.:'  But  this  still  de- 
eluded  members  were  restored  to  the  pends  on  his  veracity. 


272  DESIGNS   OF   FLEETWOOD.  CHAP.  X. 

7000  men,  lie  took  up  his  quarters  in  London,  it  seemed  to 
be  within  his  arbitrament  which  way  the  seale  should  pre 
ponderate.  On  one  side  were  the  wishes  of  the  nation, 
but  restrained  by  fear ;  on  the  other,  established  possession, 
maintained  by  the  sword,  but  rendered  precarious  by  dis 
union  and  treachery.  It  is  certainly  very  possible  that,  by 
keeping  close  to  the  parliament,  Monk  might  have  retarded, 
at  least  for  a  considerable  time,  the  great  event  which  has 
immortalized  him.  But  it  can  hardly  be  said  that  the  king's 
restoration  was  rather  owing  to  him  than  to  the  general  sen 
timents  of  the  nation,  and  almost  the  necessity  of  circum 
stances,  which  had  already  made  every  judicious  person 
anticipate  the  sole  termination  of  our  civil  discord  which 
they  had  prepared.  Whitelock,  who,  incapable  of  refusing 
compliance  with  the  ruling  power,  had  sat  in  the  committee 
of  safety  established  in  October,  1G59,  by  the  officers  who 
had  expelled  the  parliament,  has  recorded  a  curious  anec 
dote,  whence  we  may  collect  how  little  was  wanting  to  pre 
vent  Monk  from  being  the  great  mover  in  the  restoration. 
He  had  for  some  time,  as  appears  by  his  journal,  entertained 
a  persuasion  that  the  general  meditated  nothing  but  the 
king's  return,  to  which  he  was  doubtless  himself  well  in 
clined,  except  from  some  apprehension  for  the  public  inter 
est,  and  some  also  for  his  own.  This  induced  him  to  have  a 
private  conference  with  Fleetwood,  which  he  enters  as  of  the 
22d  December,  1659,  wherein,  after  pointing  out  the  prob 
able  designs  of  Monk,  he  urged  him  either  to  take  posses 
sion  of  the  Tower  and  declare  for  a  free  parliament,  in  which 
he  would  have  the  assistance  of  the  city,  or  to  send  some 
trusty  person  to  Breda,  who  might  offer  to  bring  in  the  king 
upon  such  terms  as  should  be  settled.  Both  these  proposi 
tions  were  intended  as  different  methods  of  bringing  about 
a  revolution  which  he  judged  to  be  inevitable.  "  By  this 
means,"  he  contended,  "  Fleetwood  might  make  terms  with 
the  king  for  preservation  of  himself  and  his  friends,  and  of 
that  cause,  in  a  good  measure,  in  which  they  had  been  en 
gaged;  but  if  it  were  left  to  Monk,  they  and  all  that  had 
been  done  would  be  left  to  the  danger  of  destruction.  Fleet- 
wood  then  asked  me,  'if  I  would  be  willing  to  go  myself 
upon  this  employment  ? '  I  answered,  '  that  I  would  go  if 
Fleetwood  thought  fit  to  send  me.'  And  after  much  other 
discourse  to  this  effect  Fleetwood  seemed  fully  satisfied  to 


COMMONWEALTH.      RETURN   OF   SECLUDED  MEMBERS.          273 

send  me  to  the  king,  and  desired  me  to  go  and  prepare  my 
self  forthwith  for  the  journey  ;  and  that  in  the  mean  time 
Fleetwood  and  his  friends  would  prepare  the  instructions  for 
me,  so  that  I  might  begin  my  journey  this  evening  or  to 
morrow  morning  early. 

"  I,  going  away  from  Fleetwood,  met  Vane,  Desborough, 
and  Berry  in  the  next  room,  coming  to  speak  with  Fleet- 
wood,  who  thereupon  desired  me  to  stay  a  little  ;  and  I  sus 
pected  what  would  be  the  issue  of  their  consultation,  and 
within  a  quarter  of  an  hour  Fleetwood  came  to  me,  and  in 
much  passion  said  to  me,  '  I  cannot  do  it !  I  cannot  do  it ! ' 
I  desired  his  reason  why  he  could  not  do  it  ?  lie  answered, 
'  Those  gentlemen  have  remembered  me,  and  it  is  true,  that 
I  am  engaged  not  to  do  any  such  thing  without  my  lord 
Lambert's  consent.'  I  replied,  '  that  Lambert  was  at  too 
great  a  distance  to  have  his  consent  to  this  business,  which 
must  be  instantly  acted.'  Fleetwood  again  said,  '  I  cannot 
do  it  without  him.'  Then  1  said,  '  You  will  ruin  yourself 
and  your  friends.'  He  said,  '  I  cannot  help  it.'  Then  I  told 
him  I  must  take  my  leave,  and  so  we  parted."1 

Whatever  might  have   been   in   the   power  of  Monk  by 
adhering  to  his  declarations  of  obedience  to  the 
parliament,  it  would  have  been  too  late  for  him,  members 
after  consenting  to  the  restoration  of  the  secluded  return  to 

°.  -,,  their  seats. 

members  to  their  seats  on  February  21,  1GGO,  to 
withstand  the  settlement  which  it  seems  incredible  that  he 
should  not  at  that  time  have  desired.  That  he  continued  for 
at  least  six  weeks  afterwards  in  a  course  of  astonishing  dis 
simulation,  so  as  to  deceive  in  a  great  measure  almost  all  the 
royalists,  who  were  distrusting  his  intentions  at  the  very 
moment  when  he  made  his  first  and  most  private  tender  of 
service  to  the  king  through  Sir  John  Grenvil  about  the  be 
ginning  of  April,  might  at  first  seem  rather  to  have  pro 
ceeded  from  a  sort  of  inability  to  shake  off  his  inveterate 
reservedness  than  from  consummate  prudence  and  discre 
tion  ;  for  any  sudden  risings  in  the  king's  favor,  or  an  in 
trigue  in  the  council  of  state,  might  easily  have  brought 
about  the  Restoration  without  his  concurrence ;  and,  even  as 
it  was,  the  language  held  in  the  house  of  commons  before 
their  dissolution,  the  votes  expunging  all  that  appeared  on 
their  journals  against  the  regal  government  and  the  house 

i  Whitelock,  690. 
18 


274 


REASON   OF  MONK'S   DISSIMULATION.       CHAP.  X. 


of  lord.*,1  and,  above  all,  the  course  of  the  elections  for  the 
new  parliament,  made  it  sufficiently  evident  that  the  general 
had  delayed  his  assurances  of  loyalty  till  they  had  lost  a  part 
of  their  value.  It  is,  however,  a  full  explanation  of  Monk's 
public  conduct  that  he  was  not  secure  of  the  army,  chiefly 
imbued  with  fanatical  principles,  and  bearing  an  inveterate 
hatred  towards  the  name  of  Charles  Stuart.  A  correspon 
dent  of  the  king  writes  to  him  on  the  28th  of  March,  "  The 
army  is  not  yet  in  a  state  to  hear  your  name  publicly."  2  In 
the  beginning  of  that  month  many  of  the  officers,  instigated 


l  The  engagement  was  repealed  March 
13.  This  was  of  itself  tantamount  to  a 
declaration  in  favor  of  the  king,  though 
perhaps  the  previous  order  of  March  5, 
that  the  solemn  league  and  covenant 
should  be  read  in  churches,  was  still  more 
so.  Prynne  was  the  first  who  had  the 
boldness  to  speak  for  the  king,  declaring 
his  opinion  that  the  parliament  was  dis 
solved  by  the  death  of  Charles  I. ;  he  was 
supported  by  one  or  two  more.  Clar. 
Papers,  696.  Thurloe.  vii.  854.  Carte's 
Letters,  ii.  312.  Prynne  wrote  a  pam 
phlet  advising  the  peers  to  meet  and  issue 
writs  for  a  new  parliament,  according  to 
the  provisions  of  the  triennial  act,  which, 
in  fact,  was  no  bad  expedient.  Somers 
Tracts,  iv.  534. 

A  speech  of  sir  Harbottle  Grimston  be 
fore  the  close  of  the  parliament,  March, 
1660,  is  more  explicit  for  the  king's  res 
toration  than  anything  which  1  have  seen 
elsewhere  ;  and  as  I  do  not  know  that  it 
has  been  printed,  I  will  give  an  extract 
from  the  Harleiau  MS.  1579. 

He  urges  it  as  necessary  to  be  done  by 
them,  and  not  left  for  the  next  parlia 
ment,  who  all  men  believe  would  restore 
him.  ic  This  is  so  true  and  so  well  under 
stood,  that  we  all  believe  that,  whatso 
ever  our  thoughts  are,  this  will  be  the 
opinion  of  the  succeeding  parliament, 
whose  concerns  as  well  as  affections  will 
make  them  active  for  his  introduction. 
And  I  appeal,  then,  to  your  own  judg 
ments  whether  it  is  likely  that  those  per 
sons,  as  to  their  particular  interest  more 
unconcerned,  and  probably  less  knowing 
in  the  affairs  of  the  nation,  can  or  would 
obtain  for  any  those  terms  or  articles  as 
we  are  yet  in  a  capacity  to  procure  both 
for  them  and  us.  I  must  confess  sincere 
ly  that  it  would  be  as  strange  to  me  as  a 
miracle,  did  I  not  know  that  God  infatu 
ates  whom  he  designs  to  destroy,  that  we 
can  see  the  king's  return  so  unavoidable, 
and  yet  be  no  more  studious  of  serving 
him,  or  at  least  ourselves,  in  the  manag 
ing  of  his  recall. 


"  The  general,  that  noble  personage  to 
whom  under  God  we  do  and  must  owe 
all  the  advantages  of  our  past  and  future 
changes,  will  be  as  far  from  opposing  us 
in  the  design,  as  the  design  is  removed 
from  the  disadvantage  of  the  nation.  He 
himself  is,  I  am  confident,  of  the  same 
opinion  ;  and  if  he  has  not  yet  given 
notice  of  it  to  the  house,  it  is  not  that  he 
does  not  look  upon  it  as  the  best  expedi 
ent  ;  but  he  only  forbears  to  propose  it, 
that  he  might  not  seem  to  necessitate  us, 
and  by  an  over-early  discovery  of  his  own 
judgment  be  thought  to  take  from  us  the 
freedom  of  ours." 

In  another  place  he  says,  "That  the 
recalling  of  our  king  in  this  only  way  (for 
composure  of  affairs)  is  already  grown  al 
most  as  visible  as  true  ;  and,  were  it  but 
confessed  of  all  of  whom  it  is  believed, 
I  should  quickly  hear  from  the  greatest 
part  of  this  house  what  now  it  hears  alone 
from  me.  Had  we  as  little  reason  to  fear 
as  we  have  too  much,  that,  if  we  bring 
not  in  the  king,  he  either  already  is,  or 
shortly  may  be,  in  a  capacity  of  coining 
in  unsent  for,  rnethiuks  the  very  knowl 
edge  of  his  right  were  enough  to  keep 
just  persons,  such  as  we  would  be  con 
ceived  to  be,  from  being  accessory  to  his 
longer  absence.  AVe  are  already,  and  but 
j  ustly,  reported  to  have  been  the  occasion 
of  our  prince's  banishment ;  we  may, 
then,  with  reason  and  equal  truth,  for 
aught  I  know,  be  thought  to  have  been 
the  contrivers  of  it,  unless  we  endeavor 
the  contrary,  by  not  suffering  the  mis 
chief  to  continue  longer  which  is  in  our 
power  to  remove." 

Such  passages  as  these,  and  the  general 
tenor  of  public  speeches,  sermons,  and 
pamphlets,  in  the  spring  of  1660,  show 
how  little  Monk  can  be  justly  said  to 
have  restored  Charles  II.,  except  so  far 
as  he  did  not  persist  in  preventing  it  so 
long  as  he  might  have  done. 

2  ""Clarendon  State  Papers,  711. 


COMMONWEALTH.      HIS  ACTS  AS  LORD-GENERAL.  275 

by  Haslerig  and  his  friends,  had  protested  to  Monk  against 
the  proceedings  of  the  house,  insisting  that  they  should  ab 
jure  the  king  and  house  of  lords.  He  repressed  their 
mutinous  spirit,  and  bade  them  obey  the  parliament,  as  he 
should  do.1  Hence  he  redoubled  his  protestations  of  abhor 
rence  of  monarchy,  and  seemed  for  several  weeks,  in  exterior 
demonstrations,  rather  the  grand  impediment  to  the  king's 
restoration  than  the  one  person  who  was  to  have  the  credit 
of  it.2  Meanwhile  he  silently  proceeded  in  displacing  the 
officers  whom  he  could  least  trust,  and  disposing  the  regi 
ments  near  to  the  metropolis  or  at  a  distance,  according  to 
his  knowledge  of  their  tempers ;  the  parliament  having  given 
him  a  commission  as  lord-general  of  all  the  forces  in  the 
three  kingdoms.3  The  commissioners  appointed  by  parlia 
ment  for  raising  the  militia  in  each  county  were  chiefly  gen 
tlemen  of  the  presbyterian  party  ;  and  there  seemed  likely 
to  be  such  a  considerable  force  under  their  orders  as  might 
rescue  the  nation  from  its  ignominious  servitude  to  the  army. 
In  fact,  some  of  the  royalists  expected  that  the  great  ques 
tion  would  not  be  carried  without  an  appeal  to  the  sword.4 
The  delay  of  Monk  in  privately  assuring  the  king  of  his 
fidelity  is  still  not  easy  to  be  explained,  but  may  have  pro 
ceeded  from  a  want  of  confidence  in  Charles's  secrecy,  or 
that  of  his  counsellors.  It  must  be  admitted  that  lord  Clar- 

1  Clarendon  State  Papers,  696.  Oliver  himself,  who,  though  he  manacled 

2  Id.  678,  et  post.     He  wrote  a  letter  the  citizens'  hands,  yet  never  took  away 
(Jan.  21)    to  the  gentry  of  Devon,  who  the  doors  of  the  city,"  and  so  forth.    It 
had  petitioned  the  speaker  for  the  read-  appears  by  the  letters  of  Mordaunt  and 
mission  of  the  secluded  members,  object-  Broderick  to  Hyde,  and  by  those  of  Hyde 
ing  to  that  measure  as  likely  to  bring  in  himself  in   the   Clarendon   Papers,    that 
monarchy,  very  judicious,  and  with  an  they  had  no  sort  of  confidence  in  Monk 
air  of  sincerity  that  might  deceive  any  till  near  the  end  of  March  :  though  Bar- 
one  ;    and  after  the  restoration  of  these  wick,    another    of    his    correspondents, 
secluded  members,  he  made  a  speech  to  seems  to  have  had  more  insight  into  the 
them    (Feb.  21)    strongly    against    mon-  general's  designs  (Thurloe,  852,  860,  870), 
archy  ;    and  that  so    ingenuously,  upon  who  had  expressed   himself  to  a  friend 
such  good  reasons,  so  much  without  in-  of  the  writer,  probably  Clobery,  fully  in 
vective   or   fanaticism,    that   the   profes-  favor  of  the  king,  before  March  19. 
sioual  hypocrites,  who  were  used  to  their  3  Clar.    699,   705.      Thurloe,   vii.   860, 
own  tone  of  imposture,  were  deceived  by  870. 

his.  Cromwell  was  a  mere  bungler  to  4  A  correspondent  of  Ormond  writes, 
him.  See  these  in  Harris's  Charles  II.,  March  16  :"  This  night  the  fatal  long 
296,  or  Somers  Tracts,  vi.  551.  It  cannot  parliament  hath  dissolved  itself.  All  this 
be  wondered  at  that  the  royalists  were  appears  well ;  but  I  believe  we  shall  not 
exasperated  at  Monk's  behavior.  They  be  settled  upon  our  ancient  foundations 
published  abusive  pamphlets  against  him  without  a  war,  for  which  all  prepare 
in  February,  from  which  Kennet,  in  his  vigorously  and  openly."  Carte's  Letters, 
Register,  p.  53,  gives  quotations  :  —  ii.  513.  It  appears  also,  from  a  letter  of 
"  Whereas  he  was  the  common  hopes  of  Massey  to  Hyde,  that  a  rising  in  differ- 
all  men,  he  is  now  the  common  hatred  of  ent  counties  was  intended.  Thurloe, 
all  men,  as  a  traitor  more  detestable  than  854. 


276 


DIFFICULTIES  ABOUT 


CHAP.  X. 


endon,  who  has  written  with  some  minuteness  and  accuracy 
this  important  part  of  his  History,  has  more  than  insinuated 
(especially  as  we  now  read  his  genuine  language,  which  the 
ill-faith  of  his  original  editors  had  shamefully  garbled)  that 
Monk  entertained  no  purposes  in  the  king's  favor  till  the  last 
moment ;  but  a  manifest  prejudice  that  shows  itself  in  all  his 
writings  against  the  general,  derived  partly  from  offence  at 
his  extreme  reserve  and  caution  during  this  period,  partly 
from  personal  resentment  of  Monk's  behavior  at  the  time  of 
his  own  impeachment,  greatly  takes  off  from  the  weight  of 
the  noble  historian's  judgment.1 

The  months  of  March  and  April,  16  GO,  were  a  period  of 
Difficulties  extreme  inquietude,  during  which  every  one  spoke 
nbout  the  of  the  king's  restoration  as  imminent,  yet  none 
could  distinctly  perceive  by  what  means  it  would 
be  effected,  and  much  less  how  the  difficulties  of  such  a  set 
tlement  could  be  overcome.2  As  the  moment  approached, 


1  After  giving  the  substance  of  Monk's 
speech    to   the   house,  recommending   a 
new   parliament,  but   insisting  on  com 
monwealth  principles,  Clarendon  goes  on: 
'•  There  was  no  dissimulation  in  this,  in 
order  to  cover  and  conceal  his  good  in 
tentions  to  the  king ;  for  without  doubt 
he  had  not  to  this  hour  entertained  any 
purpose   or  thought   to  serve  him,  but 
was  really  of  the  opinion  he  expressed  in 
his  paper,  that  it  was  a  work  impossible  ; 
and  desired  nothing  but  that  he  might 
see  a  commonwealth  established  on  such 
a  model  as  Holland  was,  where  he  had 
been  bred,  and  that  himself  might  enjoy 
the  authority  and  place  which  the  prince 
of  Orange  possessed  in  that  government." 

2  The  Clarendon  and  Thurloe  Papers 
are  full  of  more  proofs  of  this  that  can  be 
quoted,  and  are  very  amusing  to  read,  as 
a  perpetually  shifting   picture   of  hopes 
and  fears,  and  conjectures  right  or  wrong. 
Pepys's  Diary  also,  in  these  two  months, 
strikingly  shows   the   prevailing   uncer 
tainty  as  to  Monk's  intentions,  as  well  as 
the   general    desire   of  having   the  king 
brought  in.     It  seems  plain  that,  if  he 
had  delayed  a  very  little  longer,  he  would 
have  lost  the  whole  credit  of  the  restora 
tion.     All    parties    began    to    crowd    in 
with   addresses    to  the  king  in  the  first 
part  of  April,  before  Monk  was  known  to 
have  declared  himself.     Thurloe,  among 
others,  was  full  of  his  offers,  though  evi 
dently  anxious  to  find  out  whether  the 
king  had  an  interest  with  Monk,  p.  898. 
The  royalists  had  long  entertained  hopes, 
from  time  to  time,  of  this  deep  politician ; 


but  it  is  certain  he  never  wished  well  to 
their  cause,  and,  with  St.  John  and  Pier- 
point,  had  been  most  zealous,  to  the  last 
moment  that  it  seemed  practicable, 
against  the  restoration.  There  had  been, 
so  late  as  February,  1660,  or  even  after 
wards,  a  strange  plan  of  setting  up  again 
Richard  Cromwell,  wherein  not  only 
these  three,  but  Montague,  Jones,  and 
others,  were  thought  to  be  concerned,  er 
roneously  no  doubt  as  to  Montague.  Clar 
endon  State  Papers,  693.  Carte's  Let 
ters,  ii.  310,  330.  "  One  of  the  greatest 
reasons  they  alleged  was,  that  the  king's 
party,  consisting  altogether  of  indigent 
men,  will  become  powerful  by  little  and 
little  to  force  the  king,  whatever  be  his 
own  disposition,  to  break  any  engagement 
he  can  now  make  ;  and  since  the  nation 
is  bent  on  a  single  person,  none  will  com 
bine  all  interests  so  well  as  Richard." 
This  made  Monk,  it  is  said,  jealous  of 
St.  John,  so  that  he  was  chosen  at  Cam 
bridge  to  exclude  him.  In  a  letter  of 
Thurloe  to  Downing  at  the  Hague,  April 
6,  he  says  "  that  many  of  the  presbyte- 
rians  are  alarmed  at  the  prospect,  and 
thinking  how  to  keep  the  king  out  with 
out  joining  the  sectaries."  vii.  887. 
This  could  hardly  be  achieved  but  by 
setting  up  Richard.  Yet  that,  as  is  tru 
ly  said  in  one  of  the  letters  quoted,  was 
ridiculous.  None  were  so  conspicuous 
and  intrepid  on  the  king's  side  as  the  pres- 
byterian  ministers.  Reynolds  preached 
before  the  lord  mayor,  Feb.  28,  with 
manifest  allusion  to  the  restoration ; 
Gaudeu  (who  may  be  reckoned  on  that 


COMMONWEALTH.  THE  RESTORATION.  277 

men  turned  their  attention  more  to  the  obstacles  and  dangers 
that  lay  in  their  way.  The  restoration  of  a  banished  family, 
concerning  whom  they  knew  little,  and  what  they  knew  not 
entirely  to  their  satisfaction,  with  ruined,  perhaps  revenge 
ful,  followers  ;  the  returning  ascendency  of  a  distressed 
party,  who  had  sustained  losses  that  could  not  be  repaired 
without  fresh  changes  of  property,  injuries  that  could  not  be 
atoned  without  fresh  severities ;  the  conflicting  pretensions 
of  two  churches  —  one  loath  to  release  its  claim,  the  other  to 
yield  its  possession  ;  the  unsettled  dissensions  between  the 
crown  and  parliament,  suspended  only  by  civil  war  and 
usurpation  ;  all  seemed  pregnant  with  such  difficulties  that 
prudent  men  could  hardly  look  forward  to  the  impending 
revolution  without  some  hesitation  and  anxiety.1  Hence 
Pierpoint,  one  of  the  wisest  statesmen  in  England,  though 
not  so  far  implicated  in  past  transactions  as  to  have  much  to 
fear,  seems  never  to  have  overcome  his  repugnance  to  the 
recall  of  the  king  ;  and  I  am  by  no  means  convinced  that 
the  slowness  of  Monk  himself  was  not  in  some  measure 
owing  to  his  sense  of  the  embarrassments  that  might  attend 
that  event.  The  presbyterians,  generally  speaking,  had  al 
ways  been  on  their  guard  against  an  unconditional  restora 
tion.  They  felt  much  more  of  hatred  to  the  prevailing 
power  than  of  attachment  to  the  house  of  Stuart,  and  had  no 

side,  as  conforming  to  it)  on  the  same  vindicating  the  late  king  in  his  war 
day  much  more  explicitly.  Rennet's  against  the  parliament,  for  which  the 
Register,  69.  Sharp  says,  in  a  letter  to  a  ruling  party  were  by  no  means  ripe  ;  and 
correspondent  in  Scotland,  that  he,  Ash,  having  justified  it  before  the  council,  was 
and  Calamy,  had  a  long  conversation  committed  to  the  Gate-house,  early  in 
with  Monk,  March  11,  ;'  and  convinced  April.  Id.  ibid.  These  imprudences 
him  a  commonwealth  was  impracticable,  occasioned  the  king's  declaration  from 
and  to  our  sense  sent  him  off  that  sense  Breda.  Somers  Tracts,  vi.  562.  Anoth- 
he  had  hitherto  maintained,  and  came  er  also  was  published,  April  25,  1660, 
from  him  as  being  satisfied  of  the  neces-  signed  by  several  peers,  knights,  divines, 
sity  of  dissolving  this  house,  and  calling  &c.,  of  the  royalist  party,  disclaiming  all 
anew  parliament."  Id.  p.  81.  Baxter  private  passions  and  resentments.  Ken- 
thinks  the  presbyterian  ministers,  to-  net's  Kegister.  120.  Clar.  vii.  471.  But 
gether  with  Clarges  and  Morrice,  turned  these  public  professions  were  weak  dis- 
Monk's  resolution,  and  induced  him  to  guises,  when  belied  by  their  current  Ian- 
declare  for  the  king.  Life,  p.  2.  This  is  guage.  See  Baxter,  217.  Marchmont 
a  very  plausible  conjecture,  though  I  in-  Needham,  in  a  tract  entitled  u  Interest 
cline  to  think  Monk  more  disposed  that  will  not  Lye,''  (written  in  answer  to  an 
way  by  his  own  judgment  or  his  wife's,  artful  pamphlet  ascribed  to  Fell,  after- 
But  she  was  influenced  by  the  presbyte-  wards  bishop  of  Oxford,  and  reprinted  in 
rian  clergy.  They  evidently  deserved  of  Maseres's  Tracts, '•  The  Interest  of  Eng- 
Charles  what  they  did  not  meet  with.  land  stated"  ),  endeavored  to  alarm  all 
1  The  royalists  began  too  soon  with  other  parties,  especially  the  presbyterians, 
threatening  speeches,  which  well-nigh  with  representations  of  the  violence  they 
frustrated  their  object.  Id.  721,  722,  had  to  expect  from  that  of  the  king.  See 
727.  Carte's  Letters,  318.  Thurloe,  887.  Harris's  Charles  II.,  268. 
One  Dr.  Griffith  published  a  little  book 


278  DIFFICULTIES  ABOUT  CHAP.  X. 

disposition  to  relinquish,  either  as  to  church  or  state  govern 
ment,  those  principles  for  which  they  had  fought  against 
Charles  I.  Hence  they  began,  from  the  very  time  that 
they  entered  into  the  coalition  (that  is,  the  spring  and  sum 
mer  of  1G59),  to  talk  of  the  treaty  of  Newport  as  if  all  that 
had  passed  since  their  vote  of  the  5th  December,  1648,  that 
the  king's  concessions  were  a  sufficient  ground  whereon  to 
proceed  to  the  settlement  of  the  kingdom,  had  been  like  a 
hideous  dream,  from  which  they  had  awakened  to  proceed 
exactly  in  their  former  course.1  The  council  of  state,  ap 
pointed  on  the  23d  of  February,  two  days  after  the  return 
of  the  secluded  members,  consisted  principally  of  this  party. 
And  there  can,  I  conceive,  be  no  question  that,  if  Monk  had 
continued  his  neutrality  to  the  last,  they  would,  in  conjunc 
tion  with  the  new  parliament,  have  sent  over  propositions 
for  the  king's  acceptance.  Meetings  were  held  of  the  chief 
presbyterian  lords,  Manchester,  Northumberland,  Bedford, 
Say,  with  Pierpoint  (who,  finding  it  too  late  to  prevent  the 
king's  return,  endeavored  to  render  it  as  little  dangerous  as 
possible),  Hollis,  Annesley,  sir  William  Waller,  Lewis,  and 
other  leaders  of  that  party.  Monk  sometimes  attended  on 
these  occasions,  and  always  urged  the  most  rigid  limitations.2 
His  sincerity  in  this  wras  the  less  suspected,  that  his  wife,  to 
whom  he  was  notoriously  submissive,  was  entirely  presby 
terian,  though  a  friend  to  the  king ;  and  his  own  preference 
of  that  sect  had  always  been  declared  in  a  more  consistent 
and  unequivocal  manner  than  was  usual  to  his  dark  temper. 
These  projected  limitations,  which  but  a  few  weeks  before 
Charles  would  have  thankfully  accepted,  seemed  now  intoler 
able  ;  so  rapidly  do  men  learn,  in  the  course  of  prosperous 

l  Proofs  of  the  disposition  among  this  recompense  the  delay,  rendering  what  is 
party  to  revive  the  treaty  of  the  Isle  of  now  extremely  doubtful  morally  certain, 
Wight  occur  perpetually  in  the  Thurloe  and  establishing  his  throne  upon  the  true 
and  Clarendon  Papers,  and  in  those  pub-  basis,  liberty  and  property."  July  1G, 
lishecl  by  Carte.  The  king's  agents  in  1659.  Clar.  State  Papers,  527. 
England  evidently  expected  nothing  bet-  2  Clarendon,  Hist,  of  Rebellion,  vii. 
ter  ;  and  were,  generally  speaking,  much  440.  State  Papers,  705,  729.  "  There 
for  his  accepting  the  propositions.  "  The  is  so  insolent  a  spirit  among  some  of  the 
presbyteriau  lords,"  says  sir  Allen  Brod-  nobility,"  says  Clarendon,  about  the 
erick  to  Hyde,  u  with  many  of  whom  I  middle  of  February,  "  that  I  really  fear 
have  spoken,  pretend  that,  should  the  it  will  turn  to  an  aristocracy;  Monk  in 
king  come  in  upon  any  such  insurrection,  clining  that  way  too.  My  opinion  is 
abetted  by  those  of  his  own  party,  he  clear  that  the  king  ought  not  to  part 
would  be  more  absolute  than  his  father  with  the  church,  crown,  or  friends' 
was  in  the  height  of  his  prerogative.  Stay  lauds,  lest  he  make  my  lord  of  North um- 
therefore,  say  they,  till  we  are  ready  ;  berland  his  equal,  nay,  perhaps  his  su- 
our  numbers  so  added  will  abundantly  perior."  P.  680. 


COMMONWEALTH. 


THE  RESTORATION. 


279 


fortune,  to  scorn  what  they  just  before  hardly  presumed  to 
expect.  Those  seemed  his  friends,  not  who  desired  to  restore 
him,  but  who  would  do  so  at  the  least  sacrifice  of  his  power 
and  pride.  Several  of  the  council,  and  others  in  high  posts, 
sent  word  that  they  would  resist  the  imposition  of  unreason 
able  terms.1  Monk  himself  redeemed  his  ambiguous  and 
dilatory  behavior  by  taking  the  restoration,  as  it  were,  out  of 
the  hands  of  the  council,  and  suggesting  the  judicious  scheme 
of  anticipating  their  proposals  by  the  king's  letter  to  the  two 
houses  of  parliament.  For  this  purpose  he  had  managed, 
with  all  his  dissembling  pretences  of  commonwealth  prin 
ciples,  or,  when  he  was  (as  it  were)  compelled  to  lay  them 
aside,  of  insisting  on  rigorous  limitations,  to  prevent  any 
overtures  from  the  council,  who  were  almost  entirely  presby- 
terian,  before  the  meeting  of  parliament,  which  would  have 
considerably  embarrassed  the  king's  affairs.2  The  elections 
meantime  had  taken  a  course  which  the  faction  now  in  power 
by  no  means  regarded  with  satisfaction.  Though  the  late 
house  of  commons  had  passed  a  resolution  that  no  person 
who  had  assisted  in  any  war  against  the  parliament  since 


i  Downing,  the  minister  at  the  Hague, 
was  one  of  these.  His  overtures  to  the 
king  were  as  early  as  Monk's,  at  the  be 
ginning  of  April  ;  he  declared  his  wish 
to  see  his  majesty  restored  on  good 
terms,  though  many  were  desirous  to 
make  him  a  doge  of  Venice.  Carte's 
Letters,  ii.  320.  See  also  a  remarkable 
letter  of  the  king  to  Monk  (dated  May 
21;  but  I  suspect  he  used  the  new  style, 
therefore  read  May  11),  intimating  what 
a  service  it  would  be  to  prevent  the  im 
position  of  any  terms.  Clar.  745.  And 
another  from  him  to  Morrice,  of  the  same 
tenor,  May  20  (N.  S.),  1660,  and  hinting 
that  his  majesty's  friends  in  the  house 
had  complied  with  the  general  in  all 
things,  according  to  the  king's  direc 
tions,  departing  from  their  own  sense, 
and  restraining  themselves  from  pursu 
ing  what  they  thought  most  for  his 
service.  Thurloe,  vii.  912.  This  per 
haps  referred  to  the  indemnity  and  other 
provisions  then  pending  in  the  commons, 
or  rather  to  the  delay  of  a  few  days  be 
fore  the  delivery  of  sir  John  Grenvil's 
message. 

-  ''  Monk  came  this  day  (about  the 
first  week  of  April)  to  the  council,  and 
assured  them  that,  notwithstanding  all 
the  appearance  of  a  general  desire  of 
kingly  government,  yet  it  was  in  nowise 
his  sense,  and  that  he  would  spend  the 


last  drop  of  his  blood  to  maintain  the 
contrary."  Extract  of  a  letter  from 
Thurloe  to  Downing.  Carte's  Letters, 
ii.  322.  "  The  council  of  state  are  utter 
ly  ignorant  of  Monk's  treating  with  the 
king  ;  and  surely,  as  the  present  temper 
of  the  council  of  state  is  now,  and  may 
possibly  be  also  of  the  parliament,  by 
reason  of  the  presbyterian  influence 
upon  both,  I  should  think  the  first 
chapman  will  not  be  the  worst,  who 
perhaps  will  not  offer  so  good  a  rate  in 
conjunction  with  the  company  as  he  may 
give  to  engross  the  commodity."  Clar. 
722,  April  6.  This  sentence  is  a  clue  to 
all  the  intrigue.  It  is  said  soon  after 
wards  (p.  726,  April  11)  that  the  presby- 
terians  were  much  troubled  at  the  course 
of  the  elections,  which  made  some  of  the 
council  of  state  again  address  themselves 
to  Monk  for  his  consent  to  propositions 
they  would  send  to  the  king;  but  he 
absolutely  refused,  and  said  he  would 
leave  all  to  a  free  parliament,  as  he  had 
promised  the  nation.  Yet,  though  the 
elections  went  as  well  as  the  royalists 
could  reasonably  expect,  Hyde  was  dis 
satisfied  that  the  king  was  "not  restored 
without  the  intervention  of  the  new  par 
liament;  and  this  may  have  been  one 
reason  of  his  spleen  against  Monk.  P. 
726,  731. 


280  DIFFICULTIES   ABOUT  CHAP.  X. 

1642,  unless  he  should  since  have  manifested  his  good  affec 
tion  towards  it,  should  be  capable  of  being  elected,  yet  this, 
even  if  it  had  been  regarded,  as  it  was  not,  by  the  people, 
would  have  been  a  feeble  barrier  against  the  royalist  party, 
composed  in  a  great  measure  of  young  men  who  had  grown 
up  under  the  commonwealth,  and  of  those  who,  living  in  the 
parliamentary  counties  during  the  civil  war,  had  paid  a  re 
luctant  obedience  to  its  power.1  The  tide  ran  so  strongly 
for  the  king's  friends,  that  it  was  as  much  as  the  presbyte- 
rians  could  effect,  with  the  weight  of  government  in  their 
hands,  to  obtain  about  an  equality  of  strength  with  the  cava 
liers  in  the  convention  parliament.2 

It  has  been  a  frequent  reproach  to  the  conductors  of  this 
great  revolution,  that  the  king  was  restored  without  those 
terms  and  limitations  which  might  secure  the  nation  against 
his  abuse  of  their  confidence ;  and  this,  not  only  by  contem 
poraries  who  had  suffered  by  the  political  and  religious 
changes  consequent  on  the  Restoration,  or  those  who,  in  after- 
times,  have  written  with  some  prepossession  against  the  Eng 
lish  church  and  constitutional  monarchy,  but  by  the  most 
temperate  and  reasonable  men ;  so  that  it  has  become  almost 
regular  to  cast  on  the  convention  parliament,  and  more 
especially  on  Monk,  the  imputation  of  having  abandoned 
public  liberty,  and  brought  on,  by  their  inconsiderate  loyalty 
or  self-interested  treachery,  the  misgovernment  of  the  last 
two  Stuarts,  and  the  necessity  of  their  ultimate  expulsion. 
But,  as  this  is  a  very  material  part  of  our  history,  and  those 
who  pronounce  upon  it  have  not  always  a  very  distinct  notion 
either  of  what  was  or  what  could  have  been  done,  it  may  be 
worth  while  to  consider  the  matter  somewhat  more  analyti 
cally  ;  confining  myself,  it  is  to  be  observed,  in  the  present 
chapter,  to  what  took  place  before  the  king's  personal 

1  A  proposed  resolution,  that  those  Thurloe,  887.  Clarendon,  who  was  him- 
who  had  been  on  the  king's  side,  or  their  self  not  insensible  to  that  kind  of  super- 
sows,  should  be  disabled  from  voting  at  stition,  had  fancied  that  anything  done 
elections,  was  lost  by  93  to  56,  the  last  at  Gloucester  by  Massey  for  the  king's 
effort  of  the  expiring  long  parliament,  service  would  make  a  powerful  impres- 
Journals,  13th  March.  The  electors  did  sion  on  the  people. 

not  think  themselves  bound  by  this  ar-  2  It  is  a  curious  proof  of  the  state  of 
bitrary  exclusion  of  the  cavaliers  from  public  sentiment  that,  though  Monk 
parliament;  several  of  whom  (though  himself  wrote  a  letter  to  the  electors 
not  perhaps  a  great  number  within  the  of  Bridgenorth,  recommending  Thurloe, 
terms  of  the  resolution)  were  returned,  the  cavalier  party  was  so  powerful,  that 
Massey,  however,  having  gone  down  to  his  friends  did  not  even  produce  the  let- 
stand  for  Gloucester,  was  put  under  ter  lest  it  should  be  treated  with  neglect, 
arrest  by  order  of  the  council  of  state.  Thurloe,  vii.  895. 


COMMONWEALTH.  THE  RESTORATION.  281 

assumption  of  the  government  on  the  29th  of  May,  1GGO. 
The  subsequent  proceedings  of  the  convention  parliament  fall 
within  another  period. 

We  may  remark,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  unconditional 
restoration  of  Charles  II.  is  sometimes  spoken  of  in  too 
hyperbolical  language,  as  if  he  had  come  in  as  a  sort  of  con 
queror,  with  the  laws  and  liberties  of  the  people  at  his  dis-' 
cretion.  Yet  he  was  restored  to  nothing  but  the  bounded 
prerogatives  of  a  king  of  England  ;  bounded  by  every  ancient 
and  modern  statute,  including  those  of  the  long  parliament, 
which  had  been  enacted  for  the  subjects'  security.  If  it  be 
true,  as  I  have  elsewhere  observed,  that  the  long  parliament, 
in  the  year  1G41,  had  established,  in  its  most  essential  parts, 
our  existing  constitution,  it  can  hardly  be  maintained  that 
fresh  limitations  and  additional  securities  were  absolutely 
indispensable,  before  the  most  fundamental  of  all  its  prin 
ciples,  the  government  by  king,  lords,  and  commons,  could 
be  permitted  to  take  its  regular  course.  Those  who  so  vehe 
mently  reprobate  the  want  of  conditions  at  the  Restoration 
would  do  well  to  point  out  what  conditions  should  have  been 
imposed,  and  what  mischiefs  they  can  probably  trace  from 
their  omission.1  They  should  be  able  also  to  prove  that, 
in  the  circumstances  of  the  time,  it  was  quite  as  feasible  and 
convenient  to  make  certain  secure  and  obligatory  provisions 
the  terms  of  the  king's  restoration  as  seems  to  be  taken  for 
granted. 

The  chief  presbyterians  appear  to  have  considered   the 
treaty  of  Newport,  if  not  as  fit  to  be  renewed  in  Pian  of 
every  article,  yet  at  least  as  the  basis  of  the  com-  reviving 

J.  -\J.       .  the  treaty 

pact  into  which  they  were  to  enter  with  Charles  of  Newport 
II.2     But  were  the    concessions  wrested    in    this  inexPedierit- 
treaty  from  his  father,  in  the  hour  of  peril  and  necessity,  fit 
to  become  the  permanent  rules  of  the  English  constitution  ? 
Turn  to  the  articles  prescribed  by  the  long  parliament  in 
that    negotiation.     Not  to   mention    the    establishment  of  a 
rigorous  presbytery  in  the  church,  they  had  insisted  on  the 

1  "  To  the  king's  coming  in  without  difficult  to  perceive  by  what  conditions 

conditions  may  be  well  imputed  all  the  this  secret  intrigue  could  have  been  pre- 

errors  of  his  reign."     Thus  says  Burnet.  vented. 

The  great  political  error,  if  so  it  should  2  Clarendon  Papers,  p.  729.     They  re- 
be  termed,  of  his  reign,  was  a  conspiracy  solved  to  send  the  articles  of  that  treaty 
with  the  king  of  France  and  some  wicked  to   the  king,   leaving  out    the    preface, 
advisers  at  home  to  subvert  the  religion  This  was  about  the  middle  of  April, 
and  liberty  of  his   subjects  ;   and  it  is 


282  DIFFICULTIES   OF  CHAP.  X. 

exclusive  command  of  all  forces  by  land  and  sea  for  twenty 
years,  with  the  sole  power  of  levying  and  expending  the 
moneys  necessary  for  their  support ;  on  the  nomination  of 
the  principal  officers  of  state  and  of  the  judges  during  the 
same  period;  and  on  the  exclusion  of  the  king's  adherents 
from  all  trust  or  political  power.  Admit  even  that  the  insin 
cerity  and  arbitrary  principles  of  Charles  I.  had  rendered 
necessary  such  extraordinary  precautions,  was  it  to  be  sup 
posed  that  the  executive  power  should  not  revert  to  his  suc 
cessor  ?  Better  it  were,  beyond  comparison,  to  maintain  the 
perpetual  exclusion  of  his  family  than  to  mock  them  with 
such  a  titular  crown,  the  certain  cause  of  discontent  and 
intrigue,  and  to  mingle  premature  distrust  with  their  pro 
fessions  of  affection.  There  was  undoubtedly  much  to  appre 
hend  from  the  king's  restoration  ;  but  it  might  be  expected 
that  a  steady  regard  for  public  liberty  in  the  parliament  and 
the  nation  would  obviate  that  danger  without  any  momentous 
change  of  the  constitution ;  or  that,  if  such  a  sentiment 
should  prove  unhappily  too  weak,  no  guarantees  of  treaties 
or  statutes  would  afford  a  genuine  security. 

If,  however,  we  were  to  be  convinced  that  the  restoration 
Difficult  was  enC(ected  without  a  sufficient  safeguard  against 
of  framing  the  future  abuses  of  royal  power,  we  must  still 
conditions.  a]jOW)  on  looking  attentively  at  the  circumstances, 
that  there  were  very  great  difficulties  in  the  way  of  any  stip 
ulations  for  that  purpose.  It  must  be  evident  that  any  for 
mal  treaty  between  Charles  and  the  English  government,  as 
it  stood  in  April,  1660,  was  inconsistent  with  their  common 
principle.  That  government  was,  by  its  own  declarations, 
only  de  facto,  only  temporary  ;  the  return  of  the  secluded 
members  to  their  seats,  and  the  votes  they  subsequently 
passed,  held  forth  to  the  people  that  everything  done  since 
the  force  put  on  the  house  in  December,  1648,  was  by  an 
usurpation ;  the  restoration  of  the  ancient  monarchy  was  im 
plied  in  all  recent  measures,  and  was  considered  as  out  of  all 
doubt  by  the  whole  kingdom.  But  between  a  king  of  Eng 
land  and  his  subjects  no  treaty,  as  such,  could  be  binding  ; 
there  was  no  possibility  of  entering  into  stipulations  with 
Charles,  though  in  exile,  to  which  a  court  of  justice  would 
pay  the  slightest  attention,  except  by  means  of  acts  of  par 
liament.  It  was  doubtless  possible  that  the  council  of  state 
might  have  entered  into  a  secret  agreement  with  him  on  cer- 


COMMONWEALTH.  THE   GOVERNMENT.  283 

tain  terms,  to  be  incorporated  afterwards  into  bills,  as  at  the 
treaty  of  Newport.  But  at  that  treaty  his  father,  though  in 
prison,  was  the  acknowledged  sovereign  of  England ;  and  it 
is  manifest  that  the  king's  recognition  must  precede  the  en 
actment  of  any  law.  It  is  equally  obvious  that  the  contract 
ing  parties  would  no  longer  be  the  same,  and  that  the  condi 
tions  that  seemed  indispensable  to  the  council  of  state  might 
not  meet  with  the  approbation  of  parliament.  It  might  occur 
to  an  impatient  people  that  the  former  were  not  invested  with 
such  legal  or  permanent  authority  as  could  give  them  any 
pretext  for  bargaining  with  the  king,  even  in  behalf  of  pub 
lic  liberty. 

But,  if  the  council  of  state  or  even  the  parliament  on  its 
first  meeting,  had  resolved  to  tender  any  hard  propositions  to 
the  king,  as  the  terms,  if  not  of  his  recognition,  yet  of  his 
being  permitted  to  exercise  the  royal  functions,  was  there  not 
a  possibility  that  he  might  demur  about  their  acceptance,  that 
a  negotiation  might  ensue  to  procure  some  abatement,  that,  in 
the  interchange  of  couriers  between  London  and  Brussels, 
some  weeks  at  least  might  be  whiled  away  ?  Clarendon,  we 
are  sure,  inflexible  and  uncompromising  as  to  his  master's 
honor,  would  have  dissuaded  such  enormous  sacrifices  as  had 
been  exacted  from  the  late  king.  And  during  this  delay, 
while  no  legal  authority  would  have  subsisted,  so  that  no  offi 
cer  could  have  collected  the  taxes  or  executed  process  with 
out  liability  to  punishment,  in  what  a  precarious  state  would 
the  parliament  have  stood  !  On  the  one  hand,  the  nation, 
almost  maddened  with  the  intoxication  of  reviving  loyalty, 
and  rather  prone  to  cast  at  the  king's  feet  the  privileges  and 
liberties  it  possessed  than  to  demand  fresh  security  for  them, 
might  insist  upon  his  immediate  return,  and  impair  the  au 
thority  of  parliament.  On  the  other  hand,  the  army,  desper 
ately  irreconcilable  to  the  name  of  Stuart,  and  sullenly  resent 
ing  the  hypocrisy  that  had  deluded  them,  though  they  knew 
no  longer  where  to  seek  a  leader,  were  accessible  to  the  furi 
ous  commonwealth's  men,  who,  rushing  as  it  were  with  lighted 
torches  along  their  ranks,  endeavored  to  rekindle  a  fanaticism 
that  had  not  quite  consumed  its  fuel.1  The  escape  of  Lam 
bert  from  the  Tower  had  struck  a  panic  into  all  the  king 
dom  ;  some  such  accident  might  again  furnish  a  rallying-point 
lor  the  disaffected,  and  plunge  the  country  into  an  unfathom- 

i  Life  of  Clarendon,  p.  10. 


284        CONDUCT  OF  THE  CONTENTION.     CHAP.  X. 

able  abyss  of  confusion.  Hence  the  motion  of  sir  Matthew 
Hale,  in  the  convention  parliament,  to  appoint  a  committee 
who  should  draw  up  propositions  to  be  sent  over  for  the 
king's  acceptance,  does  not  appear  to  me  well-timed  and 
expedient ;  nor  can  I  censure  Monk  for  having  objected  to 
it.1  The  business  in  hand  required  greater  despatch.  If 
the  king's  restoration  was  an  essential  blessing,  it  was  not  to 
be  thrown  away  in  the  debates  of  a  committee.  A  wary, 
scrupulous,  conscientious  English  lawyer,  like  Hale,  is  always 
wanting  in  the  rapidity  and  decision  necessary  for  revolu 
tions,  though  he  may  be  highly  useful  in  preventing  them 
from  going  too  far. 

It  is,  I  confess,  more  probable  that  the  king  would  have 
Conduct  of  accepted  almost  any  conditions  tendered  to  him  ; 
the  conven-  suc}1  at  jeast  would  have  been  the  advice  of  most 

tion  about  _  -  .  .-.  ..  ..  ~ 

this  not  ot  his  counsellors  ;  and  his  own  conduct  in  bcot- 
biamabie,  ]an(j  wag  sufficjent  to  show  how  little  any  sense  of 
honor  or  dignity  would  have  stood  in  his  way.  But  on  what 
grounds  did  his  English  friends,  nay,  some  of  the  presbyteri- 
ans  themselves,  advise  his  submission  to  the  dictates  of  that 
party  ?  It  was  in  the  expectation  that  the  next  free  parlia 
ment,  summoned  by  his  own  writ,  would  undo  all  this  work 
of  stipulation,  and  restore  him  to  an  unfettered  prerogative. 
And  this  expectation  there  was  every  ground,  from  the  tem 
per  of  the  nation,  to  entertain.  Unless  the  convention  par 
liament  had  bargained  for  its  own  perpetuity,  or  the  privy 
council  had  been  made  immovable,  or  a  military  force  inde 
pendent  of  the  crown  had  been  kept  up  to  overawe  the 
people  (all  of  them  most  unconstitutional  and  abominable 
usurpations),  there  was  no  possibility  of  maintaining  the 
conditions,  whatever  they  might  have  been,  from  the  want 
of  which  so  much  mischief  is  fancied  to  have  sprung.  Evils 
did  take  place,  dangers  did  arise,  the  liberties  of  England 
were  once  more  impaired ;  but  these  are  far  less  to  be 
ascribed  to  the  actors  in  the  restoration  than  to  the  next  par 
liament,  and  to  the  nation  who  chose  it. 

I  must  once  more  request  the  reader  to  take  notice  that  I 
am  not  here  concerned  with  the  proceedings  of  the  conven 
tion  parliament  after  the  king's  return  to  England,  which  in 

l  "This,"  says  Bui-net,  somewhat  in-  self,  the  tide  ran  so  strong,  that  he  only 
vidiously,  ''  was  the  great  service  that  went  into  it  dexterously  enough  to  get 
Monk  did  ;  for  as  to  the  restoration  it-  much  praise  and  great  rewards."  P.  123. 


COMMONWEALTH.      ACTS  OF  CONVENTION  PARLIAMENT.      285 

some  respects  appear  to  me  censurable ;  but  discussing  the 
question,  whether  they  were  guilty  of  any  fault  in  not  ten 
dering  bills  of  limitation  on  the  prerogative,  as  preliminary 
conditions  of  his  restoration  to  the  exercise  of  his  lawful 
authority.  And  it  will  be  found,  upon  a  review  of  what 
took  place  in  that  interregnum  from  their  meeting  together 
on  the  25th  of  April,  1GGO,  to  Charles's  arrival  in  London  on 
the  29th  of  May,  that  they  were  less  unmindful  than  has 
been  sometimes  supposed  of  provisions  to  secure  the  king 
dom  against  the  perils  which  had  seemed  to  threaten  it  in  the 
restoration. 

On  the  25th  of  April  the  commons  met  and  elected  Grim- 
ston,.  a  moderate  presbyterian,  as  their  speaker,  somewhat 
against  the  secret  wish  of  the  cavaliers,  who,  elated  by  their 
success  in  the  elections,  were  beginning  to  aim  at  superiority, 
and  to  show  a  jealousy  of  their  late  allies.1  On  the  same 
day  the  doors  of  the  house  of  lords  were  found  open  ;  and 
ten  peers,  all  of  whom  had  sat  in  1648,  took  their  places  as 
if  nothing  more  than  a  common  adjournment  had  passed  in 
the  interval.2  There  was,  however,  a  very  delicate  and  em 
barrassing  question  that  had  been  much  discussed  in  their 
private  meetings.  The  object  of  these,  as  I  have  mentioned, 
was  to  impose  terms  on  the  king,  and  maintain  the  presbyte 
rian  ascendency.  But  the  peers  of  this  party  were  far  from 
numerous,  and  must  be  outvoted,  if  all  the  other  lawful  mem 
bers  of  the  house  should  be  admitted  to  their  privileges.  Of 
these  there  were  three  classes.  The  first  was  of  the  peers 
who  had  conic  to  their  titles  since  the  conclusion  of  the  civil 
war,  and  whom  there  was  no  color  of  justice,  nor  any  vote  of 
the  house,  to  exclude.  To  some  of  these  accordingly  they 
caused  letters  to  be  directed,  and  the  others  took  their  seats 
without  objection  on  the  2Gth  and  27th  of  April,  on  the  lat 
ter  of  which  days  thirty-eight  peers  were  present.3  The 
second  class  was  of  those  who  had  joined  Charles  I.,  and  had 
been  excluded  from  sitting  in  the  house  by  votes  of  the  long 
parliament.  These  it  had  been  in  contemplation  among  the 
presbyterian  junto  to  keep  out  ;  but  the  glaring  inconsist- 

i  Grimston  was  proposed  by  Pierpoint,  2  These  were  the  earls  of  Manchester, 

and  conducted  to  the  chair  by  him,  Monk,  Northumberland,  Lincoln.  Denbigh,  and 

and  Ilollis.     Journals,  Parl.  Hist.     The  Suffolk  ;  lords  Say.  Wharton,  Hunsdon, 

cavaliers  complained  that  this  was  done  Grey,  Maynard.     Lords'  Journals,  April 

before   they   canie  into   the  house,  and  25. 

that  he  was  partial.     Mordaunt  to  Hyde,  3  Clarendon  State  Papers,  734.     Lords' 

April  27-     Clarendon  State  Papers,  734.  Journals. 


286  ACTS   OF  CONVENTION  PARLIAMENT.        CHAP.  X. 

ency  of  such  a  measure  with  the  popular  sentiment,  and  the 
strength  that  the  first  class  had  given  to  the  royalist  interest 
among  the  aristocracy,  prevented  them  from  insisting  on  it. 
A  third  class  consisted  of  those  who  had  been  created  since 
the  great  seal  was  taken  to  York  in  1642;  some  by  the  late 
king,  others  by  the  present  in  exile  ;  and  these,  according  to 
the  fundamental  principle  of  the  parliamentary  side,  were 
incapable  of  sitting  in  the  house.  It  was  probably  one  of 
the  conditions  on  which  some  meant  to  insist,  conformably  to 
the  articles  of  the  treaty  of  Newport,  that  the  new  peers 
should  be  perpetually  incapable,  or  even  that  none  should  in 
future  have  the  right  of  voting  without  the  concurrence  of 
both  houses  of  parliament.  An  order  was  made  therefore  on 
May  4,  that  no  lords  created  since  1642  should  sit.  This 
was  vacated  by  a  subsequent  resolution  of  May  31. 

A  message  was  sent  down  to  the  commons  on  April  27, 
desiring  a  conference  on  the  great  affairs  of  the  kingdom. 
This  was  the  first  time  that  word  had  been  used  for  more 
than  eleven  years.  But  the  commons,  in  returning  an  an 
swer  to  this  message,  still  employed  the  word  nation.  It 
was  determined  that  the  conference  should  take  place  on 
the  ensuing  Tuesday,  the  first  of  May.1  In  this  conference 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  question  of  further  securities 
against  the  power  of  the  crown  would  have  been  discussed. 
But  Monk,  whether  from  conviction  of  their  inexpedience 
or  to  atone  for  his  ambiguous  delay,  had  determined  to  pre 
vent  any  encroachment  on  the  prerogative.  He  caused  the 
king's  letter  to  the  council  of  state  and  to  the  two  houses 
of  parliament  to  be  delivered  on  that  very  day.  A  burst 
of  enthusiastic  joy  testified  their  long-repressed  wishes  ;  and, 


i  "  It  was  this  day  (April  27)  moved  in  appear  for  the  king,  the  affections  of  the 

the  house  of  commons  to  call  in  the  king;  people  are  so  high  for  him,  that  no  other 

but  it  was  deferred  till  Tuesday  next  by  authority  can  oppose  him."  H.  Coventry 

the  king's  friends'  consent,  and  then  it  is  to  Marquis  of  Ormond.     Carte's  Letters, 

generally  believed  something  will  be  done  ii.  328.     Mordaunt  confirms  this.     Those 

in  it.    The  calling  in  of  the  king  is  now  who  moved    for  the   king  were   colonel 

not  doubted:  but  there  is  a  party  among  King  and  Mr.  Finch,  both  decided  cava- 

the   old   secluded  members    that   would  liers.     It  must  have  been  postponed  by 

have  the  treaty  grounded  upon  the  Isle  the  policy  of  Monk.     What  could  Claren- 

of  Wight  propositions  ;  and  the  old  lords  don  mean  by  saying  (History  of  Rebellion, 

are   thought    generally   of   that   design,  vii.  478)   that  "none  had   the  courage, 

But  it  is  believed  the  house  of  commons  how   loyal  soever   their  wishes  were,  to 

will  use  the  king  more  gently.     The  gen-  mention    his    majesty''?      This    strange 

eral  hath  been  highly  complimented  by  way  of  speaking  has  misled  Hume,  who 

both   houses,    and,   without   doubt,   the  copies   it.      The   king  was   as  generally 

giving  the  king  easy  or  hard  conditions  talked  of  as  if  he  were  on  the  throne. 
dependeth  totally  upon  him  ;  for,  if  he 


COMMONWEALTH.      THE  MILITIA  QUESTION.  287 

when  the  conference  took  place  the  earl  of  Manchester  was 
instructed  to  let  the  commons  know  that  the  lords  "  do  own 
and  declare  that,  according  to  the  ancient  and  fundamental 
laws  of  this  kingdom,  the  government  is  and  ought  to  be  by 
king,  lords,  and  commons."  On  the  same  day  the  commons 
resolved  to  agree  in  this  vote,  and  appointed  a  committee  to 
report  what  pretended  acts  and  ordinances  were  inconsistent 
with  it.1 

It  is,  however,  so  far  from  being  true  that  this  convention 
gave  itself  up  to  a  blind  confidence  in  the  king,  that  their 
journals  during  the  month  of  May  bear  witness  to  a  consid 
erable  activity  in  furthering  provisions  which  the  circum 
stances  appeared  to  require.  They  appointed  a  committee 
on  May  3d  to  consider  of  the  king's  letter  and  declaration, 
both  holding  forth,  it  will  be  remembered,  all  promises  of 
indemnity,  and  everything  that  could  tranquillize  apprehen 
sion,  and  to  propose  bills  accordingly,  especially  for  taking 
away  military  tenures.  One  bill  was  brought  into  the  house 
to  secure  lands  purchased  from  the  trustees  of  the  late  par 
liament  ;  another,  to  establish  ministers  already  settled  in 
benefices ;  a  third,  for  a  general  indemnity  ;  a  fourth,  to  take 
away  tenures  in  chivalry  and  wardship  ;  a  fifth,  to  make 
void  all  grants  of  honor  or  estate  made  by  the  late  or  pres 
ent  king  since  May,  1642.  Finally,  on  the  very  29th  of 
May,  we  find  a  bill  read  twice  and  committed,  for  the  con 
firmation  of  privilege  of  parliament,  Magna  Charta,  the 
Petition  of  Right,  and  other  great  constitutional  statutes.2 
These  measures,  though  some  of  them  were  never  completed, 
proved  that  the  restoration  was  not  carried  forward  with  so 
thoughtless  a  precipitancy  and  neglect  of  liberty  as  has  been 
asserted. 

There  was  undoubtedly  one  very  important  matter  of  past 
controversy  which  they  may  seem  to  have  avoided,  cxce,tin 
the  power  over  the  militia.     They  silently  gave  respect  of 
up  that  momentous  question.     Yet  it  was  become, 
in  a  practical  sense,  incomparably  more  important  that  the 
representatives  of  the  commons  should  retain  a  control  over 
the  land  forces  of  the  nation  than  it  had  been  at  the  com 
mencement  of  the  controversy.     War  and   usurpation    had 
sown  the  dragon's   teeth  in  our  fields  ;   and,  instead  of  the 

i  Lords' and  Commons' Journals.  Parl.        2  Commons' Journals. 
Hist.  iv.  24. 


288  CONDUCT   OF  MONK.  CHAP.  X. 

peaceable  trained  bands  of  former  ages,  the  citizen  soldiers 
who  could  not  be  marched  beyond  their  counties,  we  had  a 
veteran  army  accustomed  to  tread  upon  the  civil  authority 
at  the  bidding  of  their  superiors,  and  used  alike  to  govern 
and  obey.  It  seemed  prodigiously  dangerous  to  give  up  this 
weapon  into  the  hands  of  our  new  sovereign.  The  experi 
ence  of  other  countries  as  well  as  our  own  demonstrated  that 
the  public  liberty  could  never  be  secure  if  a  large  standing 
army  should  be  kept  on  foot,  or  any  standing  army  without 
consent  of  parliament.  But  this  salutary  restriction  the 
convention  parliament  did  not  think  fit  to  propose  ;  and  in 
this  respect  I  certainly  consider  them  as  having  stopped 
short  of  adequate  security.  It  is  probable  that  the  necessity 
of  humoring  Monk,  whom  it  was  their  first  vote  to  constitute 
general  of  all  the  forces  in  the  three  kingdoms,1  with  the  hope, 
which  proved  not  vain,  that  the  king  himself  would  disband 
the  present  .army,  whereon  he  could  so  little  rely,  prevented 
any  endeavor  to  establish  the  control  of  parliament  over  the 
military  power  till  it  was  too  late  to  withstand  the  violence 
of  the  cavaliers,  who  considered  the  absolute  prerogative  of 
the  crown  in  that  point  the  most  fundamental  article  of  their 
creed. 

Of  Monk  himself  it  may,  I  think,  be  said  that,  if  his  con- 
Conduct  of  duct  in  this  revolution  was  not  that  of  a  high- 
minded  patriot,  it  did  not  deserve  all  the  reproach 
that  has  been  so  frequently  thrown  on  it.  No  one  can,  with 
out  forfeiting  all  pretensions  to  have  his  own  word  believed, 
excuse  his  incomparable  deceit  and  perjury  ;  a  masterpiece, 
no  doubt,  as  it  ought  to  be  reckoned  by  those  who  set  at 
nought  the  obligations  of  veracity  in  public  transactions,  of 
that  wisdom  which  is  not  from  above.  But,  in  seconding 
the  public  wisli  for  the  king's  restoration,  a  step  which  few 
perhaps  can  be  so  much  in  love  with  fanatical  and  tyrannous 
usurpation  as  to  condemn,  he  seems  to  have  used  what  influ 
ence  he  possessed  —  an  influence  by  no  means  commanding 
—  to  render  the  new  settlement  as  little  injurious  as  possible 
to  public  and  private  interests.  If  he  frustrated  the  scheme 
of  throwing  the  executive  authority  into  the  hands  of  a 

1  Lords'  Journals,  May  2.     Upon  the  commons  were  requested   to  appoint  a 

same  day  the  house  went  into  con.sidera-  proportionate   number   to    join   therein, 

tiou   how  to  settle    the  militia  of   this  But  no  bill  was  brought  iu  till  after  the 

kingdom.     A  committee  of  twelve  lords  king's  return, 
was  appointed  for  this  purpose,  and  the 


COMMONWEALTH.  CONDUCT   OF  MOSK.  289 

presbyterian  oligarchy,  I,  for  one,  can  see  no  great  cause 
for  censure  ;  nor  is  it  quite  reasonable  to  expect  that  a  sol 
dier  of  fortune,  inured  to  the  exercise  of  arbitrary  power, 
and  exempt  from  the  prevailing  religious  fanaticism  which 
must  be  felt  or  despised,  should  have  partaken  a  fervent 
zeal  for  liberty,  as  little  congenial  to  his  temperament  as 
it  was  to  his  profession.  He  certainly  did  not  satisfy  the 
king,  even  in  his  first  promises  of  support,  when  he  advised 
an  absolute  indemnity,  and  the  preservation  of  actual  inter 
ests  in  the  lands  of  the  crown  and  church.  In  the  first 
debates  on  the  bill  of  indemnity,  when  the  case  of  the  reg 
icides  came  into  discussion,  he  pressed  for  the  smallest  num 
ber  of  exceptions  from  pardon ;  and,  though  his  conduct 
after  the  king's  return  displayed  his  accustomed  prudence, 
it  is  evident  that,  if  he  had  retained  great  influence  in  the 
council,  which  he  assuredly  did  not,  he  would  have  main 
tained  as  much  as  possible  of  the  existing  settlement  in  the 
church.  The  deepest  stain  on  his  memory  is  the  production 
of  Argyle's  private  letters  on  his  trial  in  Scotland  ;  nor  in 
deed  can  Monk  be  regarded,  upon  the  whole,  as  an  estimable 
man,  though  his  prudence  and  success  may  entitle  him,  in 
the  common  acceptation  of  the  word,  to  be  reckoned  a  great 
one. 


VOL.    II.  19 


290  JOY  AT   THE  RESTORATION.  CHAP.  XI. 


CHAPTER    XL 

FROM     THE     RESTORATION     OF     CHARLES    THE     SECOND    TO 
THE    FALL    OF    THE    CABAL    ADMINISTRATION. 

Popular  Joy  at  the  Restoration  —  Proceedings  of  the  Convention  Parliament  —  Act 
of  Indemnity  —  Exclusion  of  the  Regicides  and  others  —  Discussions  hetween  the 
Houses  on  it  —  Execution  of  Regicides  —  Restitution  of  Crown  and  Church  Lands 
—  Discontent  of  the  Royalists  —  Settlement  of  the  Revenue  —  Abolition  of  Mili 
tary  Tenures  —  Excise  granted  instead — Army  disbanded  —  Clergy  restored  to 
their  Benefices  —  Hopes  of  the  Presbyterians  from  the  King  —  Projects  for  a  Com 
promise  —  King's  Declaration  in  Favor  of  it  —  Convention  Parliament  dissolved  — 
Different  Complexion  of  the  next  —  Condemnation  of  Yane  —  Its  Injustice  —  Acts 
replacing  the  Crown  in  its  Prerogatives  —  Corporation  Act  —  Repeal  of  Triennial 
Act  —  Star-chamber  not  restored — Presbyterians  deceived  by  the  King  —  Savoy 
Conference  —  Act  of  Uniformity  —  Ejection  of  Non-conformist  Clergy  —  Hopes  of 
the  Catholics  —  Bias  of  the  King  towards  them  —  Resisted  by  Clarendon  and  the 
Parliament  —  Declaration  for  Indulgence  —  Objected  to  by  the  Commons  —  Act 
against  Conventicles  —  Another  of  the  same  kind — Remarks  on  them  —  Dissatis 
faction  increases  —  Private  Life  of  the  King  —  Opposition  in  Parliament  —  Appro 
priation  of  Supplies  —  Commission  of  Public  Accounts  —  Decline  of  Clarendon's 
Power — Loss  of  the  King's  Favor — Coalition  against  him  —  His  Impeachment  — 
Some  Articles  of  it  not  unfounded  —  Illegal  Imprisonments  —  Sale  of  Dunkirk  — 
Solicitation  of  French  Money — His  Faults  as  a  Minister  —  His  pusillanimous 
Flight  —  And  consequent  Banishment  —  Cabal  Ministry  —  Scheme  of  Comprehen 
sion  and  Indulgence  —  Triple  Alliance  —  Intrigue  with  France  —  King's  Desire  to 
be  Absolute  —  Secret  Treaty  of  1670  —  Its  Objects  —  Differences  between  Charles 
and  Louis  as  to  the  Mode  of  its  Execution  —  Fresh  Severities  against  Dissenters  — 
Dutch  War  —  Declaration  of  Indulgence  —  Opposed  by  Parliament  —  And  with 
drawn —  Test  Act  —  Fall  of  Shaftesbury  and  his  Colleagues. 

IT  is  universally  acknowledged  that  no  measure  was  ever 
more  national,  or  lias  ever  produced  more  testimonies  of  pub 
lic  approbation,  than   the   restoration   of  Charles   II.      Nor 
can  this  be  attributed  to  the  usual  fickleness  of  the 

Popular  joy  .  .       _ 

at  the  res-  multitude,  i  or  the  late  government,  whether  un 
der  the  parliament  or  the  protector,  had  never  ob 
tained  the  sanction  of  popular  consent,  nor  could  have  sub 
sisted  for  a  day  without  the  support  of  the  army.  The  king's 
return  seemed  to  the  people  the  harbinger  of  a  real  liberty, 
instead  of  that  bastard  commonwealth  which  had  insulted 
them  with  its  name  —  a  liberty  secure  from  enormous  assess 
ments,  which,  even  when  lawfully  imposed,  the  English  had 
always  paid  with  reluctance,  and  from  the  insolent  despotism 
of  the  soldiery.  The  young  and  lively  looked  forward  to  a 
release  from  the  rigors  of  fanaticism,  and  were  too  ready  to 
exchange  that  hypocritical  austerity  of  the  late  times  for  a 


CHA.  II.  -  1GGO-73.        ACT   OF  INDEMNITY.  291 

licentiousness  and  impiety  that  became  characteristic  of  the 
present.  In  this  tumult  of  exulting  hope  and  joy  there  was 
much  to  excite  anxious  forebodings  in  calmer  men  ;  and  it  was 
by  no  means  safe  to  pronounce  that  a  change  so  generally  de 
manded,  and  in  most  respects  so  expedient,  could  be  effected 
without  very  serious  sacrifices  of  public  and  particular  inter 
ests. 

Four    subjects    of  great    importance,  and    some  of  them 
very  difficult,  occupied  the  convention  parliament  „ 

J  ,  .  .  Proceedings 

irom  the  time  or  the  king  s  return  till  their  dissolu-  ofthecon- 
tion  in  the  following  December:  a  general  indem-  par~ 


nity  and  legal  oblivion  of  all  that  had  been  done 
amiss  in  the  late  interruption  of  government  ;  an  adjustment 
of  the  claims  for  reparation  which  the  crown,  the  church,  and 
private  royalists  had  to  prefer;  a  provision  for  the  king's  rev 
enue,  consistent  with  the  abolition  of  military  tenures  ;  and 
the  settlement  of  the  church.  These  were  in  effect  the 
articles  of  a  sort  of  treaty  between  the  king  and  the  nation, 
without  some  legislative  provisions  as  to  which,  no  stable  or 
tranquil  course  of  law  could  be  expected. 

The  king,  in  his  well-known  declaration  from  Breda,  dated 
the  14th  of  April,  had  laid  down,  as  it  were,  cer-  Act  of 
tain   bases  of  his   restoration,  as    to   some  points  indemnity. 
which  he  knew  to   excite   much  apprehension  in  England. 
One  of  these  was  a  free  and  general  pardon  to  all  his  subjects, 
saving  only  such  as  should  be  excepted  by  parliament.     It 
had  always  been  the  king's  expectation,  or  at  least  that  of  his 
chancellor,  that  all  who  had  been  immediately  concerned  in 
his  father's  death  should  be  delivered  up  to  punish-  Exciusion  of 
ment  ;  l  and,  in  the  most  unpropitious  state  of  his  the  regicides 
fortunes,  while  making  all  professions  of  pardon  arl 
and  favor  to  different  parties,  he  had  constantly  excepted  the 
regicides.'2    Monk,  however,  had  advised,  in  his  first  messages 
to  the  king,  that  none,  or  at  most  not  above  four,  should  be 
excepted  on  this  account  ;  3  and  the  commons  voted  that  not 

1  Life  of  Clarendon,  p.  69.  first   against  any  exceptions,  and  after- 

2  Clar.  State  Papers,  iii.  427,  529.     In  wards  prevailed    on    the   house  to   limit 
fact,  very  few  of  them  were  likely  to  be  them  to  seven  :  p.  16.     Though  Ludlow 
of  use  ;  and  the  exception  made  his  gen-  was   not    in    England,  this    seems    very 
eral  offers  appear  more  sincere.  probable,    and    is    confirmed    by    other 

a  Clar.    Hist,    of   Rebellion,   vii.    447.  authority  as  to  Monk.    Fairfax,  who  had 

Ludlow  says  that  Fairfax  and  Xorthum-  sat  one  day  himself  on  the  king's  trial, 

berland  were  positively  against  the  pun-  could  hardly  with  decency  concur  in  the 

ishment  of  the  regicides  ;  vol.  iii.  p.  10  ;  punishment  of  those  who  went  on. 
and  that  Monk  vehemently  declared  at 


292  EXCLUSION   OF  REGICIDES  CHAP.  XI. 

more  that  seven  persons  should  lose  the  benefit  of  the  indem 
nity  both  as  to  life  and  estate.1  Yet,  after  having  named 
seven  of  the  late  king's  judges,  they  proceeded  in  a  few  days 
to  add  several  more,  who  had  been  concerned  in  managing 
his  trial,  or  otherwise  forward  in  promoting  his  death.2  They 
went  on  to  pitch  upon  twenty  persons,  whom,  on  account  of 
their  deep  concern  in  the  transactions  of  the  last  twelve  years, 
they  determined  to  affect  with  penalties  not  extending  to 
death,  and  to  be  determined  by  some  future  act  of  parlia 
ment.8  As  their  passions  grew  warmer,  and  the  wishes  of 
the  court  became  better  known,  they  came  to  except  from  all 
benefit  of  the  indemnity  such  of  the  king's  judges  as  had  not 
rendered  themselves  to  justice  according  to  the  late  proclama 
tion.4  In  this  state  the  bill  of  indemnity  and  oblivion  was 
sent  up  to  the  lords.5  But  in  that  house  the  old  royalists  had 
a  more  decisive  preponderance  than  among  the  commons. 
They  voted  to  except  all  who  had  signed  the  death-warrant 
against  Charles  I.,  or  sat  when  sentence  was  pronounced,  and 
five  others  by  name,  Hacker,  Vane,  Lambert,  Haslerig,  and 
Axtell.  They  struck  out,  on  the  other  hand,  the  clause  re 
serving  Lenthall  and  the  rest  of  the  same  class  for  future 
penalties.  They  made  other  alterations  in  the  bill  to  render 
it  more  severe  ; 6  and  with  these,  after  a  pretty  long  delay, 

*  Journals,  May  14.  deserved  hanging.     Parl.  Hist.    p.  162. 

-  June  5,  6,   7.     The  first  seven  were  Lenthall   had   taken  some  share  in  the 
Scott,  Holland,  Lisle,  Barkstead,  Harri-  restoration,  and  entered  into  correspond- 
son,  Say,  Jones.     They  went  on  to  add  ence  with  the  king's  advisers  a  little  be- 
Coke,  Broughton,  Bendy.  fore.      Clar.   State  Papers,  iii.    711,  720. 

3  These  were  Lenthall,  Vane,  Burton,  Kennet's  Register,  762.    But  the  royalists 

Keble,  St.  John,  Ireton,  Haslerig.  Syden-  never  could  forgive  his  having  put  the 

ham.  Desborough,  Axtell,  Lambert,  Pack,  question  to  the  vote  on  the  ordinance  for 

Blaokwell,  Fleetwood,  Pyne,  Dean,  Creed,  trying  the  late  king. 

Nye,  Goodwin,  and  Cobbet :  some  of  them  *  June  30.     This  was  carried  without 
rather  insignificant  names.      Upon    the  a  division.     Eleven  were  afterwards  ex- 
words  that  'l  twenty  and  no  more  ;;  be  so  cepted  by  name,  as  not  having  rendered 
excepted,  two  divisions  took  place,  160  to  themselves  :  July  9. 
131,  and  153  to  135;   the  presbyterians  »  July  11. 

being  the  majority :  June  8.      Two  other  ®  The  worst  and  most  odious  of  their 

divisions  took  place  on  the  names  of  Leu-  proceedings,  quite  unworthy  of  a  Chris- 

thall,  carried  by  215  to  126,  and  of  White-  tian  and  civilized  assembly,  was  to  give 

lock,  lost  by  175  to  134.    Another  motion  the  next  relations  of  the  four  peers  who 

was  made  afterwards  against  Whitelock  had  been  executed  under  the  cominon- 

by  Prynne.     Milton  was  ordered   to   be  wealth,    Hamilton.  Holland,   Capel,  and 

prosecuted  separately  from  the  twenty  ;  Derby,  the  privilege  of  naming  each  one 

so  that  they  already  broke  their  resolu-  person  (among  the  regicides)  to  be  exe- 

tion.      He   was   put  in   custody   of    the  cuted.     This  was  done  in  the  three  last 

sergeant-at  arms,  and  released,  December  instances;  but  lord  Denbigh,  as  Hamil- 

17.      Andrew  Marvell,   his   friend,   soon  ton's  kinsman,  nominated  one  who  was 

afterwards  complained    that   fees  of  the  dead ;  and,  on  this  being  pointed  out  to 

amount  of  150  pounds  had  been  extorted  him,  refused  to  fix  on  another.    Journal, 

from  him  ;  but  Finch  answered  that  Mil-  Aug.  7.     Ludlow,  iii.  34. 
ton  had  been  Cromwell's  secretary,  and 


CHA.  II.  — 1060-73.      FROM   THE  ACT   OF  INDEMNITY.  293 

and  a  positive  message  from  the  king,  requesting  them  to 
hasten  their  proceedings  (an  irregularity  to  which  they  took 
no  exception,  arid  which  in  the  eyes  of  the  nation  was  justi 
fied  by  the  circumstances),  they  returned  the  bill  to  the  com 
mons. 

The  vindictive  spirit  displayed  by  the  upper  house  was  not 
agreeable  to  the  better  temper  of  the  commons,  where  the 
presbyterian  or  moderate  party  retained  great  influence. 
Though  the  king's  judges  (such  at  least  as  had  signed  the 
death-warrant)  were  equally  guilty,  it  was  consonant  to  the 
practice  of  all  humane  governments  to  make  a  selection  for 
capital  penalties  ;  and  to  put  forty  or  fifty  persons  to  death 
for  that  offence  seemed  a  very  sanguinary  course  of  proceed 
ing,  and  not  likely  to  promote  the  conciliation  and  oblivion  so 
much  cried  up.  But  there  was  a  yet  stronger  objection  to 
this  severity.  The  king  had  published  a  proclamation,  in  a 
few  days  after  his  landing,  commanding  his  father's  judges  to 
render  themselves  up  within  fourteen  days,  on  pain  of  being 
excepted  from  any  pardon  or  indemnity,  either  as  to  their 
lives  or  estates.  Many  had  voluntarily  come  in,  having  put 
an  obvious  construction  on  this  proclamation.  It  seems  to 
admit  of  little  question  that  the  king's  faith  was  pledged  to 
those  persons,  and  that  no  advantage  could  be  taken  of  any 
ambiguity  in  the  proclamation,  without  as  real  perfidiousness 
as  if  the  words  had  been  more  express.  They  were  at  least 
entitled  to  be  set  at  liberty,  and  to  have  a  reasonable  time 
allowed  for  making  their  escape,  if  it  were  deter-  Discugsion8 
mined  to  exclude  them  from  the  indemnity.1  The  between  the 
commons  were  more  mindful  of  the  king's  honor  houses  ou  lt- 
and  their  own  than  his  nearest  advisers.2  But  the  violent 

i  Lord  Southampton,  according  to  Lud-  king's  shoulders,  but  puts  the  case  of 

low,  actually  moved  this  in  the  house  of  those  who  obeyed  the  proclamation  on  a 

lords,  but  was  opposed  by  Finch  :  iii.  43.  very  different  footing.  The  king,  he  pre- 

'-  Clarendon  uses  some  shameful  chi-  tends,  had  always  expected  that  none  of 
canery  about  this  (Life.  p.  69) ;  and  with  the  regicides  should  be  spared.  But 
that  inaccuracy,  to  say  the  least,  so  ha-  -why  did  he  publish  such  a  proclamation  ? 
bitual  to  him,  says,  "  the  parliament  had  Clarendon,  however,  seems  to  have  been 
published  a  proclamation,  that  all  who  against  the  other  exceptions  from  the 
did  not  render  themselves  by  a  day  bill  of  indemnity,  as  contrary  to  some 
named  should  be  judged  as  guilty,  and  expressions  in  the  declaration  from  Breda, 
attainted  of  treason."  The  proclamation  which  had  been  inserted  by  Monk's  ad- 
was  published  by  the  king,  on  the  sug-  vice ;  and  thus  wisely  and  honorably  got 
gestion  indeed  of  the  lords  and  commons,  rid  of  the  twenty  exceptions,  which  had 
and  the  expressions  were  what  I  have  been  sent  up  from  the  commons,  p.  133. 
stjited  in  the  text.  State  Trials,  v.  959.  The  lower  house  resolved  to  agree  with 
Somers  Tracts,  vii.  437.  It  is  obvious  the  lords  as  to  those  twenty  persons,  or 
that  by  this  misrepresentation  he  not  rather  sixteen  of  them,  by  197  to  102, 
only  throws  the  blame  of  ill  faith  off  the  Hollis  and  Morrice  telling  the  ayes. 


294  EXECUTION   OF  REGICIDES.  CHAP.  XL 

royalists  were  gaining  ground  among  them,  and  it  ended  in 
a  compromise.  They  left  Hacker  and  Axtell,  who  had  been 
prominently  concerned  in  the  king's  death,  to  their  fate. 
They  even  admitted  the  exceptions  of  Vane  and  Lambert, 
contenting  themselves  with  a  joint  address  of  both  houses  to 
the  king,  that,  if  they  should  be  attainted,  execution  as  to 
their  lives  might  be  remitted.  Haslerig  was  saved  on  a 
division  of  141  to  11G,  partly  through  the  intercession  of 
Monk,  who  had  pledged  his  word  to  him.  Most  of  the  king's 
judges  were  entirely  excepted  ;  but  with  a  proviso  in  favor 
of  such  as  had  surrendered  according  to  tlie  proclamation, 
that  the  sentence  should  not  be  executed  without  a  special 
act  of  parliament.1  Others  were  reserved  for  penalties  not 
extending  to  life,  to  be  inflicted  by  a  future  act.  About 
twenty  enumerated  persons,  as  well  as  those  who  had  pro 
nounced  sentence  of  death  in  any  of  the  late  illegal  high 
courts  of  justice,  were  rendered  incapable  of  any  civil  or 
military  office.  Thus,  after  three  months'  delay,  which  had 
given  room  to  distrust  the  boasted  clemency  and  forgiveness 
of  the  victorious  royalists,  the  act  of  indemnity  was  finally 
passed. 

Ten  persons  suffered  death  soon  afterwards  for  the  mur- 
Execution  der  of  Charles  I. ;  and  three  more  who  had  been 
of  regicides.  suized  in  Holland,  after  a  considerable  lapse  of 
time.2  There  can  be  no  reasonable  ground  for  censuring 
either  the  king  or  the  parliament  for  their  punishment,  ex 
cept  that  Hugh  Peters,  though  a  very  odious  fanatic,  was  not 
so  directly  implicated  in  the  king's  death  as  many  who  es 
caped,  and  the  execution  of  Scrope,  who  had  surrendered 
under  the  proclamation,  was  an  inexcusable  breach  of  faith.3 

1  Stat.  12  Car.  II.  c.  11.  3    it   is  remarkable   that    Scrope  had 

2  These    were,  in    the   first  instance,  been  so  particularly  favored  by  the  con- 
Harrison,  Scott,  Scrope,  Jones,  Clement,  vention  parliament,  as  to  be  exempted, 
Carew,  all  of  whom  had  signed  the  war-  together  with  Hutchinson  and  Lascelles, 
rant,  Cook,  the  solicitor  at  the  high  court  from  any  penalty  or  forfeiture  by  a  spe- 
of  justice,  Hacker  and  Axtell,  who  com-  cial  resolution  :  '.Tune  9.     But  the  lords 
manded  the  guard  on  that  occasion,  and  put   in   his   name    again,    though    they 
Peters.     Two  years  afterwards,  Downing,  pointedly  excepted  Hutchinson  ;  and  the 
ambassador  in  Holland,  prevailed  on  the  commons,  after  first   resolving   that   he 
states  to  give  up  Barkstead,  Corbet,  and  should  only  pay  a  fine  of  one  year's  value 
Okey.      They   all    died    with    great  con-  of  his  estate,  came  at  last  to  agree  in  ex- 
stancy,  and  an  enthusiastic  persuasion  cepting  him  from  the  indemnity  as    to 
of  the  righteousness  of  their  cause.  State  life.     It  appears  that  some  private   con- 
Trials,  versation  of  Scrope  had  been   betrayed, 

Pepys  says  in  his  Diary,  13th  October,  wherein  he  spoke  of  the  king's  death  as 

1660,    of  Harrison,   whose  execution  he  he  thought. 

witnessed,  that  "he  looked  as  cheerful  As   to  Hutchinson,  he    had  certainly 

as  any  man  could  do  in  that  condition."  concurred  iu  the  restoration,  having  an 


CHA.  II.  —  1G60-73.  RESTITUTIONS.  295 

But  nothing  can  be  more  sophistical  than  to  pretend  that 
such  men  as  Ilollis  and  Annesley,  who  had  been  expelled 
from  parliament  by  the  violence  of  the  same  faction  who  put 
the  king  to  death,  were  not  to  vote  for  their  punishment,  or 
to  sit  in  judgment  on  them,  because  they  had  sided  with  the 
commons  in  the  civil  war.1  It  is  mentioned  by  many  writers, 
and  in  the  Journals,  that  when  Mr.  Lenthall,  son  of  the  late 
speaker,  in  the  very  first  days  of  the  convention  parliament, 
was  led  to  say  that  those  who  had  levied  war  against  the 
king  were  as  blamable  as  those  who  had  cut  oft*  his  head, 
he  received  a  reprimand  from  the  chair,  which  the  folly  and 
dangerous  consequence  of  his  position  wrell  deserved  ;  for 
such  language,  though  it  seems  to  have  been  used  by  him  in 
extenuation  of  the  regicides,  was  quite  in  the  tone  of  the 
violent  royalists.2 

A  question  apparently  far  more  difficult  Avas  that  of  resti 
tution  and  redress.    The  crown  lands,  those  of  the 
church,  the  estates  in  certain  instances  of  eminent 


royalists,  had  been   sold  by  the  authority  of  the  aud  church 
late  usurpers,  and  that  not  at  very  low  rates,  con 
sidering    the    precariousness   of   the    title.      This    naturally 
seemed  a   material  obstacle    to    the    restoration  of   ancient 
rights,  especially  in   the  case  of   ecclesiastical  corporations, 
whom  men  are  commonly  less  disposed  to  favor  than  private 
persons.     The  clergy  themselves   had  never  expected  that 
their   estates  would   revert   to   them   in   full   propriety,  and 
would  probably  have  been  contented,  at  the  moment  of  the 
king's  return,  to  grant  easy  leases  to  the  purchasers.     Nor 

extreme  dislike   to   the  party  who  had  haps  it  may  be  thought  that  men  of  more 

turned  out  the  parliament  in  Oct.  1659,  delicate  sentiments  than  either  of  these 

especially  Lambert.     This  may  be  inferred  possessed  would  not    have  sat  upon  the 

from   his  conduct,  as  well   as  by   what  trial  of  those  with  whom  they  had  long 

Ludlow  says,  and  Rennet  in  his  Register,  professed  to  act  in  concert,   though  in- 

p.  169.     Ilis  wife  puts  a  speech  into  his  nocent  of  their  crime. 

mouth  as  to  his  share  in  the  king's  death,  2  Commons'  Journals,  May  12,   1660. 

not  absolutely  justifying  it,  but,  I  sus-  [Yet  the  balance  of  parties  in  the  con- 

pect,  stronger  than  he  ventured  to  use.  vention  parliament  was  so  equal,  that  on 

At   least,    the  commons  voted    that   he  a  resolution  that  receivers  and  collectors 

should  be  not  excepted  from  the  indem-  of  public  money  should  be  accountable 

nity,  ';  on  account  of  his  signal  repent-  to  the  king  for  all  moneys  received  by 

ance,"  which  could  hardly  be  predicated  them  since  Jan.  30,  1648-9,  an  amend- 

of    the  language   she  ascribes   to    him.  ment  to  substitute  the  year  1642-3  was 

Compare  Mrs.  Hutchinson's  Memoirs,  p.  carried  against  the  presby  terians  by  165 

367,  with  Commons'  Journals,  June  9.  to  150.     It  was  not  designed  that  those 

i  Horace  Walpole,  in  his  Catalogue  of  who   had  accounted   to   the   parliament 

Noble  Authors,  has  thought  fit  to  censure  should  actually  refund  what  they  had 

both  these  persons  for    their    pretended  received,  but  to  declare,  indirectly,  the 

inconsistency.     The  case  is  however  dif-  illegality  of  the  parliamentary  authority 

fereut  as  to  Monk  and  Cooper  ;  and  per-  Commons'  Journals.  June  2.  —  1845.] 


296  RESTITUTIONS.  CHAP.  XL 

were  the  house  of  commons,  many  of  whom  were  interested 
in  these  sales,  inclined  to  let  in  the  former  owners  without 
conditions.  A  bill  was  accordingly  brought  into  the  house 
at  the  beginning  of  the  session  to  confirm  sales,  or  to  give 
indemnity  to  the  purchasers.  I  do  not  find  its  provisions 
more  particularly  stated.  The  zeal  of  the  royalists  soon 
caused  the  crown  lands  to  be  excepted.1  But  the  house  ad 
hered  to  the  principle  of  composition  as  to  ecclesiastical 
property,  and  kept  the  bill  a  long  time  in  debate.  At  the 
adjournment  in  September  the  chancellor  told  them  his  maj 
esty  had  thought  much  upon  the  business,  and  done  much 
for  the  accommodation  of  many  particular  persons,  and 
doubted  not  but  that,  before  they  met  again,  a  good  prog 
ress  would  be  made,  so  that  the  persons  concerned  would 
be  much  to  blame  if  they  received  not  full  satisfaction,  prom 
ising  also  to  advise  with  some  of  the  commons  as  to  that  set 
tlement.2  These  expressions  indicate  a  design  to  take  the 
matter  out  of  the  hands  of  parliament.  For  it  was  Hyde's 
firm  resolution  to  replace  the  church  in  the  whole  of  its 
property,  without  any  other  regard  to  the  actual  possessors 
than  the  right  owners  should  severally  think  it  equitable  to 
display.  And  this,  as  may  be  supposed,  proved  very  small. 
No  further  steps  were  taken  on  the  meeting  of  parliament 
after  the  adjournment ;  and  by  the  dissolution  the  parties 
were  left  to  the  common  course  of  law.  The  church,  the 
crown,  the  dispossessed  royalists,  reentered  triumphantly  on 
their  lands  :  there  were  no  means  of  repelling  the  owners' 
claim,  nor  any  satisfaction  to  be  looked  for  by  the  purchasers 
under  so  defective  a  title.  It  must  be  owned  that  the  facility 
with  which  this  was  accomplished  is  a  striking  testimony  to 
the  strength  of  the  new  government  and  the  concurrence  of 
the  nation.  This  is  the  more  remarkable,  if  it  be  true,  as 
Ludlow  informs  us,  that  the  chapter  lands  had  been  sold  by 
the  trustees  appointed  by  parliament  at  the  clear  income  of 
fifteen  or  seventeen  years'  purchase.3 

The  great  body,  however,  of  the  suffering  cavaliers,  who 
had  compounded  for  their  delinquency  under  the  ordinances 

1  Parl.  Hist.  iv.  80.  tent  to  give  leases  of  their  lands  :  p.  620, 

2  Id.  129.  723.      Hyde,     however,    was    convinced 

3  Memoirs,  p.  229.     It  appears  by  some  that  the  church  would  be  either  totally 
passages  in   the  Clarendon   Papers  that  ruined,   or  restored   to  a  great   lustre  ; 
the  church  had  not  expected  to  come  off  and  herein   he  was   right,  as  it  turned 
so  brilliantly  ;  and,  while  the  restoration  out.     P.  614. 

was  yet  unsettled,  would  have  been  con- 


CHA.  II.  — 1660-73.     SETTLEMENT   OF   THE  REVENUE.          297 

of  the  long  parliament,  or  whose  estates  had  been  for  a 
time  in  sequestration,  found  no  remedy  for  these  Discontent 
losses  by  any  process  of  law.  The  act  of  indem-  of  the 
nity  put  a  stop  to  any  suits  they  might  have  insti-  ro>"ahsts- 
tuted  against  persons  concerned  in  carrying  these  illegal  ordi 
nances  into  execution.  They  were  compelled  to  put  up  with 
their  poverty,  having  the  additional  mortification  of  seeing 
one  class,  namely,  the  clergy,  who  had  been  engaged  in  the 
same  cause,  not  alike  in  their  fortune,  and  many  even  of  the 
vanquished  republicans  undisturbed  in  wealth  which,  directly 
or  indirectly,  they  deemed  acquired  at  their  own  expense.1 
They  called  the  statute  an  act  of  indemnity  for  the  king's 
enemies,  and  of  oblivion  for  his  friends.  They  murmured  at 
the  ingratitude  of  Charles,  as  if  he  were  bound  to  forfeit  his 
honor  and  risk  his  throne  for  their  sakes.  They  conceived 
a  deep  hatred  of  Clarendon,  whose  steady  adherence  to  the 
great  principles  of  the  act  of  indemnity  is  the  most  honora 
ble  act  of  his  public  life.  And  the  discontent  engendered 
by  their  disappointed  hopes  led  to  some  part  of  the  opposi 
tion  afterwards  experienced  by  the  king,  and  still  more  cer 
tainly  to  the  coalition  against  the  minister. 

No  one  cause  had  so  eminently  contributed  to  the  dissen 
sions  between  the  crown  and  parliament,  in  the  0 

1  Settlement 

two  last  reigns,  as  the  disproportion  between  the  of  the 
public  revenues  under  a  rapidly-increasing  depre-  rc 
ciation  in  the  value  of  money,  and  the  exigencies,  at  least  on 
some  occasions,  of  the  administration.  There  could  be  no 
apology  for  the  parsimonious  reluctance  of  the  commons  to 
grant  supplies,  except  the  constitutional  necessity  of  render 
ing  them  the  condition  of  redress  of  grievances ;  and  in  the 
present  circumstances,  satisfied,  as  they  seemed  at  least  to  be, 
with  the  securities  they  had  obtained,  and  enamored  of  their 
new  sovereign,  it  was  reasonable  to  make  some  further  pro 
vision  for  the  current  expenditure.  Yet  this  was  to  be 

1  Life  of  Clarendon,  99.     L'Estrange,  while  those  who  stood  up  for   the  laws 

in  a  pamphlet  printed  before  the  end  of  were    abandoned   to    the   comfort   of  an 

1660,  complains  that  the  cavaliers  were  irreparable    but    honorable    ruin."     He 

neglected,  the  king  betrayed,  the  creat-  reviles   the    presbyterian    ministers   still 

ures   of   Cromwell,    Bradshaw,    and    St.  in   possession,   and   tells   the   king   that 

John,  laden  with  offices  and  honors.     Of  misplaced   lenity  was   his  father's  ruin, 

the  indemnity  he  says.  '•  That  act  made  Kennet's  Register,  p.  233.     See.  too.  in 

the  enemies  to  the  constitution  masters  Somers  Tracts,  vii.  517.     "The  Humble 

in  effect  of  the  booty  of  three  nations,  Representation  of  the  Sad  Condition  of 

bating  the  crown  and  church  lands,  all  the  King's  Party."     Also  p.  557. 
which  they  might   now  call   their  own; 


298  EXCISE  IN  LIEU   OF  CHAP.  XI. 

meted  out  with  such  prudence  as  not  to  place  him  beyond  the 
necessity  of  frequent  recurrence  to  their  aid.  A  committee 
was  accordingly  appointed  "  to  consider  of  settling  such  a 
revenue  on  his  majesty  as  may  maintain  the  splendor  and 
grandeur  of  his  kingly  office,  and  preserve  the  crown  from 
want  and  from  being  undervalued  by  his  neighbors."  By 
their  report  it  appeared  that  the  revenue  of  Charles  I.  from 
1G37  to  1641  had  amounted  on  an  average  to  about  900,000£, 
of  which  full  200,000^.  arose  from  sources  either  not  war 
ranted  by  law  or  no  longer  available.1  The  house  resolved 
to  raise  the  present  king's  income  to  1,200,000/.  per  annum, 
a  sum  perhaps  sufficient  in  those  times  for  the  ordinary 
charges  of  government.  But  the  funds  assigned  to  produce 
his  revenue  soon  fell  short  of  the  parliament's  calculation.2 

One  ancient  fountain  that  had  poured  its  stream  into  the 
Abolition  r°J^l  treasury  it  was  now  determined  to  close  up 
of  military  forever.  The  feudal  tenures  had  brought  with 
Excise8'  them  at  the  Conquest,  or  not  long  after,  those  inci- 
grauted  dents,  as  they  were  usually  called,  or  emoluments 
of  seigniory,  which  remained  after  the  military 
character  of  fiefs  had  been  nearly  effaced,  especially  the  right 
of  detaining  the  estates  of  minors  holding  in  chivalry  without 
accounting  for  the  profits.  This  galling  burden,  incompara 
bly  more  ruinous  to  the  tenant  than  beneficial  to  the  lord,  it 
had  long  been  determined  to  remove.  Charles,  at  the  treaty 
of  Newport,  had  consented  to  give  it  up  for  a  fixed  revenue 
of  100,0001. ;  and  this  was  almost  the  only  part  of  that  inef 
fectual  compact  which  the  present  parliament  were  anxious 
to  complete.  The  king,  though  likely  to  lose  much  patron 
age  and  influence,  and  what  passed  with  lawyers  for  a  high 
attribute  of  his  prerogative,  could  not  decently  refuse  a  com 
mutation  so  evidently  advantageous  to  the  aristocracy.  No 
great  difference  of  opinion  subsisting  as  to  the  expediency 
of  taking  away  military  tenures,  it  remained  only  to  decide 
from  what  resources  the  commutation  revenue  should  spring. 


i  [Commons'  Journals,  Sept.  4.  1660  ;  1,200,000*.    voted    by  parliament.      See 

which  I  quote  from  ''Letter  to  the  Rev.  his  Diary,  March  1,  1664.     Ralph,  how- 

T.  Carte"  (in  1749),  p.  44.     This  seems  ever,    says,    the    income    in    1662    was 

to  have  been  exclusive  of  ship-money. —  1,120,593/.,  though  the  expenditure  was 

1845.]  1,439.000*.  :   p.  88.     It  appears  probable 

'-  Commons'   Journals,    September    4,  that   the   hereditary  excise   did  not   yet 

1660.     Sir  Philip  Warwick,  chancellor  of  produce  much  beyond  its  estimate.     Id. 

the  exchequer,  assured  Pepys  that  the  p.  20. 
revenue  fell  short  by  a   fourth  of  the 


CHA.  II.  — 1660-73.        MILITARY  TENURES.  299 

Two  schemes  were  suggested ;  the  one,  a  permanent  tax  on 
lands  held  in  chivalry  (which,  as  distinguished  from  those  in 
socage,  were  alone  liable  to  the  feudal  burdens)  ;  the  other, 
an  excise  on  beer  and  some  other  liquors.  It  is  evident  that 
the  former  was  founded  on  a  just  principle,  while  the  latter 
transferred  a  particular  burden  to  the  community.  But  the 
self-interest  which  so  unhappily  predominates  even  in  repre 
sentative  assemblies,  with  the  aid  of  the  courtiers,  who  knew 
that  an  excise  increasing  with  the  riches  of  the  country  was 
far  more  desirable  for  the  crown  than  a  fixed  land-tax, 
caused  the  former  to  be  carried,  though  by  the  very  small 
majority  of  two  voices.1  Yet  even  thus,  if  the  impoverish 
ment  of  the  gentry,  and  dilapidation  of  their  estates  through 
the  detestable  abuses  of  wardship,  was,  as  cannot  be  doubted, 
very  mischievous  to  the  inferior  classes,  the  whole  community 
must  be  reckoned  gainers  by  the  arrangement,  thought  it 
might  have  been  conducted  in  a  more  equitable  manner. 
The  statute  12  Car.  II.  c.  24,  takes  away  the  court  of  wards, 
with  all  wardships  and  forfeitures  for  marriage  by  reason  of 
tenure,  all  primer  seisins  and  fines  for  alienation,  aids,  escu- 
ages,  homages,  and  tenures  by  chivalry  without  exception, 
save  the  honorary  services  of  grand  sergeanty  ;  converting  all 
such  tenures  into  common  socage.  The  same  statute  abol 
ishes  those  famous  rights  of  purveyance  and  preemption,  the 
fruitful  theme  of  so  many  complaining  parliaments ;  and 
this  relief  of  the  people  from  a  general  burden  may  serve  in 
some  measure  as  an  apology  for  the  imposition  of  the  excise. 
This  act  may  be  said  to  have  wrought  an  important  change 
in  the  spirit  of  our  constitution,  by  reducing  what  is  emphat 
ically  called  the  prerogative  of  the  crown,  and  which,  by  its 
practical  exhibition  in  these  two  vexatious  exercises  of  power, 
wardship  and  purveyance,  kept  up  in  the  minds  of  the  people 
a  more  distinct  perception,  as  well  as  more  awe,  of  the  mon 
archy,  than  could  be  felt  in  later  periods,  when  it  has  become, 
as  it  were,  merged  in  the  common  course  of  law,  and  blended 
with  the  very  complex  mechanism  of  our  institutions.  This 
great  innovation,  however,  is  properly  to  be  referred  to  the 
revolution  of  1641,  which  put  an  end  to  the  court  of  star- 
chamber,  and  suspended  the  feudal  superiorities.  Hence, 

i  Nov.   21,  1660,   151    to    149.      Parl.  of  what  already  was  paid  by  virtue  of 

Hist.     [It  is  to  be  observed,  as  some  ex-  ordinances  under  the  common  wealth.  — 

cuse  for  the  commons,  that  the  heredi-  1845- ] 
tary  exci.se  thus  granted  was  one  moiety 


300  ARMY  DISBANDED.  CHAP.  XL 

with  all  the  vmisconduct  of  the  two  last  Stuart?,  and  all  the 
tendency  towards  arbitrary  power  that  their  government 
often  displayed,  we  must  perceive  that  the  constitution  had 
put  on,  in  a  very  great  degree,  its  modern  character  during 
that  period  ;  the  boundaries  of  prerogative  were  better  under 
stood  ;  its  pretensions,  at  least  in  public,  were  less  enormous ; 
and  not  so  many  violent  and  oppressive,  certainly  not  so 
many  illegal,  acts  were  committed  towards  individuals  as 
under  the  two  first  of  their  family. 

In  fixing  upon  1,200,OOOZ.  as  a  competent  revenue  for  the 
Army  dis-  crown,  the  commons  tacitly  gave  it  to  be  under- 
banded,  stood  that  a  regular  military  force  was  not  among 
the  necessities  for  which  they  meant  to  provide.  They 
looked  upon  the  army,  notwithstanding  its  recent  services, 
with  that  apprehension  and  jealousy  which  became  an  Eng 
lish  house  of  commons.  They  were  still  supporting  it  by 
monthly  assessments  of  70,000/.,  and  could  gain  no  relief  by 
the  king's  restoration  till  that  charge  came  to  an  end.  A  bill 
therefore  was  sent  up  to  the  lords  before  their  adjournment 
in  September,  providing  money  for  disbanding  the  land  forces. 
This  was  done  during  the  recess  :  the  soldiers  received  their 
arrears  with  many  fair  \vords  of  praise,  and  the  nation  saw 
itself,  with  delight  and  thankfulness  to  the  king,  released 
from  its  heavy  burdens  and  the  dread  of  servitude.1  Yet 
Charles  had  too  much  knowledge  of  foreign  countries,  where 
monarchy  flourished  in  all  its  plenitude  of  sovereign  power 
under  the  guardian  sword  of  a  standing  army,  to  part  readily 
with  so  favorite  an  instrument  of  kings.  Some  of  his  coun 
sellors,  and  especially  the  duke  of  York,  dissuaded  him  from 
disbanding  the  army,  or  at  least  advised  his  supplying  its 
place  by  another.  The  unsettled  state  of  the  kingdom  after 
so  momentous  a  revolution,  the  dangerous  audacity  of  the 
fanatical  party,  whose  enterprises  were  the  more  to  be 
guarded  against  because  they  were  founded  on  no  such  cal 
culation  as  reasonable  men  would  form,  and  of  which  the 
insurrection  of  Venner  in  November,  1660,  furnished  an 
example,  did  undoubtedly  appear  a  very  plausible  excuse  for 
something  more  of  a  military  protection  to  the  government 
than  yeomen  of  the  guard  and  gentlemen  pensioners.  Gen- 

1  The  troops  disbanded  were  fourteen    in  Scotland,  besides  garrisons.    Journals, 
regiments  of  horse  and  eighteen  of  foot    Nov.  7. 
in  England ;  one  of  horse  and  four  of  foot 


CHA.  II.  — 1600-73.      THE  CLERGY   RESTORED.  301 

eral  Monk's  regiment,  called  the  Coldstream,  and  -one  other 
of  horse,  were  accordingly  retained  by  the  king  in  his  ser 
vice  ;  another  was  formed  out  of  troops  brought  from  Dun 
kirk  ;  and  thus  began,  under  the  name  of  guards,  the  present 
regular  army  of  Great  Britain.1  In  1GG2  these  amounted  to 
about  oOOO  men ;  a  petty  force  according  to  our  present 
notions,  or  to  the  practice  of  other  European  monarchies  in 
that  age,  yet  sufficient  to  establish  an  alarming  precedent, 
and  to  open  a  new  source  of  contention  between  the  support 
ers  of  power  and  those  of  freedom. 

So  little  essential  innovation  had  been  effected  by  twenty 
years'  interruption  of  the  regular  government  in  the  com 
mon  law  or  course  of  judicial  proceedings,  that,  when  the 
king  and  house  of  lords  were  restored  to  their  places,  little 
more  seemed  to  be  requisite  than  a  change  of  names.  But 
what  was  true  of  the  state  could  not  be  applied  to  the  church. 
The  re  volution  there  had  gone  much  farther,  and  the  ques 
tions  of  restoration  and  compromise  were  far  more  difficult. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  such  of  the  clergy  as  steadily 
adhered  to  the  episcopal  constitution  had  been  ex- 
pelled  from  their  beneh'ces  by  the  long  parliament  restored 
under  various  pretexts,  and  chiefly  for  refusing  to  benefices 
take  the  covenant.  The  new  establishment  was 
nominally  presbyterian.  But  the  presbyterian  discipline  and 
synodical  government  were  very  partially  introduced  ;  and, 
upon  the  whole,  the  church,  during  the  suspension  of  the 
ancient  laws,  was  rather  an  assemblage  of  congregations  than 
a  compact  body,  having  little  more  unity  than  resulted  from 
their  common  dependency  on  the  temporal  magistrate.  In 
the  time  of  Cromwell,  who  favored  the  independent  sectaries, 
some  of  that  denomination  obtained  livings  ;  but  very  few,  I 
believe,  comparatively,  who  had  not  received  either  episcopal 
or  presbyterian  ordination.  The  right  of  private  patronage 
to  beneh'ces,  and  that  of  tithes,  though  continually  menaced 
by  the  more  violent  party,  subsisted  without  alteration. 
Meanwhile  the  episcopal  ministers,  though  excluded  from 
legal  toleration  along  with  papists,  by  the  instrument  of  gov 
ernment  under  which  Cromwell  professed  to  hold  his  power, 
obtained,  in  general,  a  sufficient  indulgence  for  the  exercise 
of  their  function.2  Once,  indeed,  on  discovery  of  the  royalist 

i  Ralph.  35 :  Life  of  James,  447  ;  Grose's        2  Xeal,  429,  444. 
Military  Antiquities,  i.  Gl. 


302  HOPES   OF  PRESBYTERIANS  CHAP.  XI. 

conspiracy  in  1655,  he  published  a  severe  ordinance,  forbid 
ding  every  ejected  minister  or  fellow  of  a  college  to  act  as 
domestic  chaplain  or  schoolmaster.  But  this  was  coupled 
with  a  promise  to  show  as  much  tenderness  as  might  consist 
with  the  safety  of  the  nation  towards  such  of  the  said  persons 
as  should  give  testimony  of  their  good  affection  to  the  gov 
ernment  ;  and,  in  point  of  fact,  this  ordinance  was  so  far 
from  being  rigorously  observed,  that  episcopalian  conventi 
cles  were  openly  kept  in  London.1  Cromwell  was  of  a 
really  tolerant  disposition,  and  there  had  perhaps,  on  the 
whole,  been  no  period  of  equal  duration  wherein  the  cath 
olics  themselves  suffered  so  little  molestation  as  under  the 
protectorate.2  It  is  well  known  that  he  permitted  the  set 
tlement  of  Jews  in  England,  after  an  exclusion  of  nearly 
three  centuries,  in  spite  of  the  denunciations  of  some  bigoted 
churchmen  and  lawyers. 

The  presbyterian  clergy,  though  cooperating  in  the  king's 

restoration,   experienced  very  just  apprehensions 

Spresby-     °f  the  church  they  had  supplanted  ;  and  this  was 

teriausfrom    in  fact  one  great  motive   of  the   restrictions  that 

the  king.  .  .  .  . 

party  was  so  anxious  to  impose  on  him.  His 
character  and  sentiments  were  yet  very  imperfectly  known 
in  England  ;  and  much  pains  were  taken  on  both  sides,  by 
short  pamphlets,  panegyrical  or  defamatory,  to  represent  him 
as  the  best  Englishman  and  best  protestant  of  the  age,  or 
as  one  given  up  to  profligacy  and  popery.3  The  caricature 

1  Neal,   471.     Pepys's  Diary,   ad  init.     lock  tells  us  he  opposed  it,  625.     It  was 
Even  in  Oxford,  about  300  episcopalians    not  acted  upon. 

used  to  meet  every  Sunday  with  the  con-        »  Several  of  these   appear  in  Somers's 

nivance    of    Dr.    Owen,   dean   of    Christ  f  Tracts,  vol.  vii.  The  king's  nearest  friends 

Church.     Orme's  Life  of  Owen,  188.     It  were  of  course  not  backward  in  praising 

is  somewhat  bold  in  Anglican  writers  to  him,  though  a  little  at   the  expense  of 

complain,  as  they  now  and  then  do,  of  their  consciences.     "  In   a   word,"  says 

the  persecution  they  suffered  at  this  pe-  Hyde  to  a  correspondent   in   1659,   "if 

riod,  when  we  consider  what   had  been  being  the  best  protestant  and    the  best 

the  conduct  of  the  bishops  before,  and  Englishman  of  the  nation  can  do  the  king 

what  it  was  afterwards.     I  do  not  know  good  at  home,  he  must  prosper  with  and 

that  any  member  of  the  church  of  Eng-  by  his  own  subjects."  Clar.  State  Papers, 

land  was  imprisoned  under  the  common-  541.      Morley   says  he   had    been  to  see 

wealth,  except  for  some  political  reason;  judge    Hale,  who    asked   him  questions 

certain  it  is  that  the  jails  were  not  filled  about  the  king's  character  and  firmness 

with  them.  in  the  protestaut  religion.  Id.  73o.    Mor- 

2  The  penal  laws  were  comparatively  ley's  exertions  to  dispossess  men  of  the 
dormant,    though    two    priests    suffered  notion  that  the  king  and  his  brother  were 
death,  one  of  them  before  the  protector-  inclined  to  popery  are  also  mentioned  by 
ate.     Butler's  Mem.  of  Catholics,  ii.  13.  Rennet  in  his  Register,  818  ;  a  book  con- 
But  in  1655  Cromwell  issued  a  proclama-  taining  very  copious  information   as  to 
tion  for  the  execution  of  these  statutes  ;  this  particular  period.    Yet  Morley  could 
which  seems  to  have  been  provoked  by  hardly  have  been  without   strong  suspi- 
the  persecution  of  the  Vaudois.     White-  cions  as  to  both  of  them. 


CIIA.  II.  — 1060-73.  FROM   THE   KING.  303 

likeness  was,  we  must  now  acknowledge,  more  true  than  the 
other ;  but  at  that  time  it  was  fair  and  natural  to  dwell  on 
the  more  pleasing  picture.  The  presbyterians  remembered 
that  he  was  what  they  called  a  covenanted  king  ;  that  is,  that, 
for  the  sake  of  the  assistance  of  the  Scots,  lie  had  submitted 
to  all  the  obligations,  and  taken  all  the  oaths,  they  thought 
fit  to  impose.1  But  it  was  well  known  that,  on  the  failure 
of  those  prospects,  he  had  returned  to  the  church  of  Eng 
land,  and  that  he  was  surrounded  by  its  zealous  adherents. 
Charles,  in  his  declaration  from  Breda,  promised  to  grant 
liberty  of  conscience,  so  that  no  man  should  be  disquieted  or 
called  in  question  for  differences  of  opinion  in  matters  of  re 
ligion  which  do  not  disturb  the  peace  of  the  kingdom,  and 
to  consent  to  such  acts  of  parliament  as  should  be  offered  to 
him  for  confirming  that  indulgence.  But  he  was  silent  as  to 
the  church  establishment ;  and  the  presbyterian  ministers, 
who  wrent  over  to  present  the  congratulations  of  their  body, 
met  with  civil  language,  but  no  sort  of  encouragement  to 
expect  any  personal  compliance  on  the  king's  part  with  their 
mode  of  worship.2 

The  moderate  party  in  the  convention  parliament,  though 
not  absolutely  of  the    presbyterian   interest,  saw     0->cts 
the   danger  of  permitting  an   oppressed  body  of  foracom- 
churchmen    to    regain    their    superiority    without  pr01 
some   restraint.     The  actual   incumbents   of  benefices   were 
on  the  whole  a  respectable  and  even  exemplary  class,  most 
of  whom   could  not  be   reckoned  answerable   for  the   legal 
defects  of  their  title.     But  the  ejected  ministers  of  the  An 
glican  church,  who  had  endured  for  their  attachment  to  its 
discipline  and  to  the  crown  so  many  years  of  poverty  and 
privation,   stood    in    a  still    more    favorable  light,  and    had 
an  evident  claim  to  restoration.     The  commons  accordingly, 

1  He  had  written  in  cipher  to  secretary  "  I  see  clearly."  he  writes  on  June  10, 
Nicholas,  from  St.  Johnston's,  Sept.  8,  "  the  general  will  not  stand  bv  the  pres- 
1650.  the  day  of  the  battle  of  Dnnbar.  byterians :  they  talk  of  closing"with  mod- 
*'  Nothing  could  have  confirmed  me  more  erate  episcopacy  for  fear  of  worse."  And 
to  the  church  of  England  than  being  here,  on  June  23.  "'All  is  wrong  here  as  to 
seeing  their  hypocrisy.7'  Supplement  to  church  affairs.  Episcopacy  will  be  set- 
Evelyn's  Diary,  133.  The  whole  letter  tied  here  to  the  height ;  their  lands  will 
shows  that  he  was  on  the  point  of  giving  be  all  restored.  None  of  the  presbyte- 
his  new  friends  the  slip  :  as  indeed  he  rian  way  here  oppose  this,  but  mourn 
attempted  soon  after,  in  what  was  called  in  secret."  •'  The  generality  of  the  peo- 
the  Start.  Laing,  iii.  463.  pie  are  doting  after  prelacy  and  the  ser- 
-  [Several  letters  of  Sharp,  then  in  vice-book."  He  found  to'  his  cost  that 
London,  are  published  in  Wodrow's  it  was  much  otherwise  in  Scotland.  — 
'•  History  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,"  1845.] 
which  I  quote  from  Kennet's  Register. 


304  PROJECTS   FOR  CHAP.  XL 

before  the  king's  return,  prepared  a  bill  for  confirming  and 
restoring  ministers,  with  the  twofold  object  of  replacing  in 
their  benefices,  but  without  their  legal  right  to  the  interme 
diate  profits,  the  episcopal  clergy  who  by  ejection  or  forced 
surrender  had  made  way  for  intruders,  and  at  the  same  time 
of  establishing  the  possession,  though  originally  usurped,  of 
those  against  whom  there  was  no  claimant  living  to  dispute 
it,  as  well  as  of  those  who  had  been  presented  on  legal  va 
cancies.1  This  act  did  not  pass  without  opposition  from  the 
cavaliers,  who  panted  to  retaliate  the  persecution  that  had 
afflicted  their  church.2 

This  legal  security,  however,  for  the  enjoyment  of  their 
livings  gave  no  satisfaction  to  the  scruples  of  conscientious 
men.  The  episcopal  discipline,  the  Anglican  liturgy  and 
ceremonies,  having  never  been  abrogated  by  law,  revived  of 
course  with  the  constitutional  monarchy ;  and  brought  with 
them  all  the  penalties  that  the  act  of  uniformity  and  other 
statutes  had  inflicted.  The  non-conforming  clergy  threw 
themselves  on  the  king's  compassion,  or  gratitude,  or  policy, 
for  relief.  The  independents,  too  irreconcilable  to  the  es 
tablished  church  for  any  scheme  of  comprehension,  looked 
only  to  that  liberty  of  conscience  which  the  king's  declara 
tion  from  Breda  had  held  forth.3  But  the  presbyterians 
soothed  themselves  with  hopes  of  retaining  their  benefices 
by  some  compromise  with  their  adversaries.  They  had 
never,  generally  speaking,  embraced  the  rigid  principles  of 
the  Scottish  clergy,  and  were  willing  to  admit  what  they 

1  12  Car.  TI.  c.  17.     It  is  quite  clear  acts  of  parliament  might  not  grow  into 
that  an  usurped  possession  was  confirmed  disuse.     Many  got  the  additional  security 
by  this  act.  where  the  lawful  incumbent  of  such  patents  ;  which  proved  of  service 
•was  dead  [though  Burnet  intimates  that,  to  them,  when  the  next  parliament  did 
this  statute  not  having  been  confirmed  riot  think  fit  to  confirm  this  important 
by  the  next  parliament,  those  who  had  statute.      Baxter  says,  p.  241,  some  got 
originally  come  in  by  an  unlawful  title,  letters-patent  to  turn  out  the  possessors, 
were  expelled  by  course  of  law.     This  I  where  the  former  incumbents  were  dead. 
am  inclined  to  doubt,  as  such  a  proceed-  These  must  have  been  to  benefices  in  the 
ing  would  have  assumed  the  invalidity  gift  of  the  crown ;  in  other  cases  letters- 
of  the  laws  enacted    in  the  convention  patent  could  have  been  of  no  effect.     I 
parliament.     But  we  find  by  a  case  re-  have  found  this  confirmed  by  the  Jour- 
ported  in  1  Ventris,  that  the  judges  would  nals,  Aug.  27,  1660.     [But  compare  the 
not  suffer    these  acts  to  be  disputed.  —  preceding  note,  which  leaves  some  doubt 
1845.]  on  the  facts  of  the  case.] 

2  Parl.   Hist.  94.      The  chancellor,  in  3  Upon  Venner's  insurrection,  though 
his  speech  to  the  houses  at  their  adjourn-  the  sectaries,  and  especially  the  indepen- 
ment  in  September,  gave  them  to  under-  dents,  published  a  declaration  of  their 
stand  that  this  bill  was  not  quite  satis-  abhorrence  of  it,   a   pretext  was  found 
factory  to  the  court,  who  preferred  the  for  issuing   a  proclamation  to  shut  up 
confirmation  of  ministers   by  particular  the  conventicles  of  the  anabaptists  and 
letters-patent  under  the  great  seal ;  that  quakers,  and  so  worded  as  to  reach  all 
the  king's  prerogative  of  dispensing  with  others.     Keunet's  Register,  357. 


CHA.  II.  — 1060-73.  A  COMPROMISE.  305 

called  a  moderate  episcopacy.  They  offered,  accordingly, 
on  the  king's  request  to  know  their  terms,  a  middle  scheme, 
usually  denominated  Bishop  Usher's  Model;  not  as  alto 
gether  approving  it,  but  because  they  could  not  hope  for 
anything  nearer  to  their  own  views.  This  consisted,  first, 
in  the  appointment  of  a  suffragan  bishop  for  each  rural 
deanery,  holding  a  monthly  synod  of  the  presbyters  within 
his  district ;  and,  secondly,  in  an  annual  diocesan  synod  of 
suffragans  and  representatives  of  the  presbyters,  under  the 
presidency  of  the  bishop,  and  deciding  upon  all  matters 
before  them  by  plurality  of  suffrages.1  This  is,  I  believe, 
considered  by  most  competent  judges  as  approaching  more 
nearly  than  our  own  system  to  the  usage  of  the  primitive 
church,  which  gave  considerable  influence  and  superiority 
of  rank  to  the  bishop,  without  destroying  the  aristocratical 
character  and  coordinate  jurisdiction  of  the  ecclesiastical  sen 
ate.2  It  lessened  also  the  inconveniences  supposed  to  result 
from  the  great  extent  of  some  English  dioceses.  But,  though 
such  a  system  was  inconsistent  with  that  parity  which  the 
rigid  presbyterians  maintained  to  be  indispensable,  and  those 
who  espoused  it  are  reckoned,  in  a  theological  division, 

1  Collier,  869,  871  ;   Baxter,  232,  238.  one  of  their  own  number  for  a  chief  or 
The  bishops  said,  in  their  answer  to  the  president  ;  3.  That  there  is  no  reason  to 
presbyterians'  proposals,  that  the  objec-  consider  any  part  of  the  apostolical  disci- 
tions  against  a  single  person's  adminis-  pline  as  an  invariable  model  for  future 
tration  in  the  church  were  equally  appli-  ages,  and  that  much  of  our  own  ecclesi- 
cable   to   the   state.     Collier,  872.     But  astical  polity  cannot  any  way  pretend  to 
this  was  false,  as  they  well   knew,  and  primitive   authority  ;    4.    That   this   has 
designed   only    to  produce   an   effect  at  been  the  opinion  of  all  the  most  eminent 
court;     for     the     objections    were     not  theologians    at    home    and    abroad;     5. 
grounded  on   reasoning,  but  on   a  pre-  That  it  would  be  expedient  to  introduce 
sumed     positive      institution.       Besides  various  modifications,    not  on  the  whole 
•which,  the  argument  cut  against  them-  much  different  from  the  scheme  of  Usher, 
selves:   for.  if  the  English  constitution,  Stillingtteet.  whose  work  is  a  remarkable 
or  something  analogous  to  it,  had  been  instance  of  extensive  learning  and  ma- 
established  in  the  church,  their  adver-  ture    judgment    at    the    age    of    about 
saries    would    have    had    all    they   now  twenty-three,    thought  fit   afterwards  to 
asked.  retract  it  in  a  certain  degree;  and  tow- 

2  Stillingfleet's  Irenicum.     King's  In-  ards  the  latter  part  of  his  life  gave  in  to 
quiry  into  the  Constitution  of  the  Primi-  more  high-church  politics.      It   is   true 
tive  Church.     The  former  work  was  pub-  that  the  Irenicum  must  have  been  com.- 
lished  at  this  time,  with  a  view  to  mod-  posed  with  almost  unparalleled  rapidity 
erate   the    pretensions   of    the   Anglican  for  such  a  work;  but  it  shows,  as  far  as  I 
party,  to  which  the  author  belonged,  by  can   judge,    no   marks   of   precipitancy, 
showing:    1.  That  there  are  no  sufficient  The  biographical  writers  put   its  publi- 
data  for  determining  with  certainty  the  cation  in  1659 ;   but  this  must  be  a  mis- 
form  of  church  government  in  the  apos-  take  ;  it  could  not  have  passed  the  press 
tolical   age,  or  that  which   immediately  on*  the  24th  of  March,  1660,   the  latest 
followed  it;   2.  That,  as  far  as  we  may  day  which    could,  according  to  the   old 
probably      conjecture,      the      primitive  style,  have  admitted  the  date  of  1659, 
church   was    framed    on    the   model  of  as  it  contains    allusions    to    the    king's 
the    synagogue  ;    that    is,   a    synod    of  restoration. 

priests    in    every    congregation,    having 
VOL.   II.  20 


306  CHARLES   DECLARES   IN  ITS   FAVOR.       CHAP.  XL 

among  episcopalians,  it  was  in  the  eyes  of  equally  rigid 
churchmen  little  better  than  a  disguised  presbytery,  and  a 
real  subversion  of  the  Anglican  hierarchy.1 

The  presbyterian  ministers,  or  rather  a  few  eminent  per 
sons  of  that  class,  proceeded  to  solicit  a  revision  of  the  lit 
urgy,  and  a  consideration  of  the  numerous  objections  which 
they  made  to  certain  passages,  while  they  admitted  the  law 
fulness  of  a  prescribed  form.  They  implored  the  king  also 
to  abolish,  or  at  least  not  to  enjoin  as  necessary,  some  of 
those  ceremonies  which  they  scrupled  to  use,  and  which  in 
fact  had  been  the  original  cause  of  their  schism  ;  the  sur 
plice,  the  cross  in  baptism,  the  practice  of  kneeling  at  the 
communion,  and  one  or  two  more.  A  tone  of  humble  sup 
plication  pervades  all  their  language,  which  some  might  in 
vidiously  contrast  with  their  unbending  haughtiness  in  pros 
perity.  The  bishops  and  other  Anglican  divines,  to  whom 
their  propositions  were  referred,  met  the  offer  of  capitulation 
with  a  scornful  and  vindictive  smile.  They  held  out  not  the 
least  overture  towards  a  compromise. 

The  king,  however,  deemed  it  expedient,  during  the  con 
tinuance  of  a  parliament  the  majority  of  whom  were  desir 
ous  of  union  in  the  church,  and  had  given  some  indications 
of  their  disposition,2  to  keep  up  the  delusion  a  little  longer 
and  prevent  the  possible  consequences  of  despair.  He  had 
already  appointed  several  presbyterian  ministers  his  chap 
lains,  and  given  them  frequent  audiences.  But  during  the 
recess  of  parliament  he  published  a  declaration,  wherein, 
after  some  compliments  to  the  ministers  of  the  presbyterian 
opinion,  and  an  artful  expression  of  satisfaction  that  he  had 
found  them  no  enemies  to  episcopacy  or  a  liturgy,  as  they 

had  been  reported  to  be,  he  announces  his  inten- 
n     tion  to  appoint  a  sufficient  number   of  suffragan 
in  favor          bishops  in  the  larger  dioceses  ;  he  promises  that 

no  bishop  should  ordain  or  exercise  any  part  of 
his  spiritual  jurisdiction  without  advice  and  assistance  of  his 

i  Baxter's   Life.      Keal.      [The  episco-  churches.      But    those   few,    "  by   their 

paliaiis,   according   to    Baxter,   were   of  parts   and  interest  in   the  nobility  and 

two  kinds,  "  the  old  common  moderate  gentry,  did  carry  it  at  last  against  the 

sort,"  who  took  episcopacy  to  be  good,  other  party."     Baxters  Life,  part  2,'  p. 

but  not  necessary,  and  owned  the  other  149. — 1845.] 

reformed  to  be  true  churches ;  and  those  -  They  addressed  the  king  to  call  such 

who  followed  Dr.  Hammond,  and  were  divines  as  he  should  think  fit,  to  advise 

very  few  :  their  notion  was  that  presby-  with    concerning    matters    of    religion, 

ters  in  Scripture  meant  bishops  exclu-  July    20,    1660.      Journals    and     Parl. 

sively,  and  they  set  aside  the  reformed  Hist. 


CHA.  II.  — 1660-73.       ILL-FAITH   OF   THE  KIXG.  307 

presbyters  ;  that  no  chancellors  or  officials  of  the  bishops 
should  use  any  jurisdiction  over  the  ministry,  nor  any  arch 
deacon  without  the  advice  of  a  council  of  his  clergy  ;  that 
the  dean  and  chapter  of  the  diocese,  together  with  an  equal 
number  of  presbyters,  annually  chosen  by  the  clergy,  should 
be  always  advising  and  assisting  at  all  ordinations,  church 
censures,  and  other  important  acts  of  spiritual  jurisdiction. 
He  declared  also  that  he  would  appoint  an  equal  number  of 
divines  of  both  persuasions  to  revise  the  liturgy  ;  desiring 
that  in  the  mean  time  none  would  wholly  lay  it  aside,  yet 
promising  that  no  one  should  be  molested  for  not  using  it  till 
it  should  be  reviewed  and  reformed.  With  regard  to  cer 
emonies,  he  declared  that  none  should  be  compelled  to  re 
ceive  the  sacrament  kneeling,  nor  to  use  the  cross  in  baptism, 
nor  to  bow  at  the  name  of  Jesus,  nor  to  wear  the  surplice 
except  in  the  royal  chapel  and  in  cathedrals,  nor  should  sub 
scription  to  articles  not  doctrinal  be  required.  He  renewed 
also  his  declaration  from  Breda,  that  no  man  should  be  called 
in  question  for  differences  of  religious  opinion  not  disturbing 
the  peace  of  the  kingdom.1 

Though  many  of  the  presbyterian  party  deemed  this  mod 
ification  of  Anglican  episcopacy  a  departure  from  their  no 
tions  of  an  apostolic  church,  and  inconsistent  with  their  cov 
enant,  the  majority  would  doubtless  have  acquiesced  in  so 
extensive  a  concession  from  the  ruling  power.  If  faithfully 
executed  according  to  its  apparent  meaning,  it  does  not  seem 
that  the  declaration  falls  very  short  of  their  own  proposal, 
the  scheme  of  Usher.2  The  high-churchmen,  indeed,  would 

1  Parl.    Hist.      Neal,    Baxter,    Collier,  if   they   disagreed,    lords   Anglesea    and 

&c.      Burnet  says   that   Clarendon   had  Hollis  to  decide. 

made  the  king  publish  this  declaration ;        2  The    chief    objection    made    by   the 

"  but  the   bishops   did   not  approve  of  presbyterians,  as   far  as  we  learn   from 

this  ;  and.  after  the  service  they  did  that  Baxter,  was,  that  the  consent  of  presby- 

lord   in   the    duke  of   York's    marriage,  ters  to  the  bishops;  acts  was  not  promised 

he    would    not    put    any    hardship    on  by  the  declaration,  but  only  their  advice ; 

those  who  had  so  signally  obliged  him."  a   distinction  apparently   not   very   uia- 

This  is  very  invidious.     I  know  no  evi-  terial  in  practice,  where  the  advice  was 

dence  that  the  declaration  was  published  apparently  made  obligatory,  but  bearing 

at  Clarendon's  suggestion,  except  indeed  perhaps   on    the   great   point  of  contro- 

that  he   was   the    great  adviser  of   the  versy,   whether    the    difference    between 

crown  ;   yet   in   some   things,   especially  the  two  were  in  order  or  in  degree.     The 

of  this  nature,  the  king  seems  to  have  king  would  not  come  into  the  scheme  of 

acted  without  his  concurrence.     He  cer-  consent ;  though  they  pressed  him  with 

tainly  speaks  of  the  declaration  as  if  he  a  passage  out  of  the  Icon  Basilike.  where 

did  not  wholly  relish   it  (Life,   75).  and  his  father  allowed  of  it.     Life  of  Baxter, 

does  not  state  it  fairly.     In  State  Trials,  276.      Some  alterations,   however,   were 

vi.  11.  it  is  said. to  have  been  drawn  up  made   in   consequence  of   their   sugges- 

by  Morley  and  Henchman  for  the  church,  tions. 
Keynolds  and  Calamy  for  the  dissenters ; 


308          CONVENTION   PARLIAMENT   DISSOLVED.        CHAP.  XL 

have  murmured  had  it  been  made  effectual.  But  such  as 
were  nearest  the  king's  councils  well  knew  that  nothing  else 
was  intended  by  it  than  to  scatter  dust  in  men's  eyes,  and  to 
prevent  the  interference  of  parliament.  This  was  soon  ren 
dered  manifest,  when  a  bill  to  render  the  king's  declaration 
effectual  was  vigorously  opposed  by  the  courtiers,  and  re 
jected  on  a  second  reading  by  183  to  157.1  Nothing  could 
more  forcibly  demonstrate  an  intention  of  breaking  faith  with 
the  presbyterians  than  this  vote.  For  the  king's  declaration 
was  repugnant  to  the  act  of  uniformity  and  many  other  stat 
utes,  so  that  it  could  not  be  carried  into  effect  without  the 
authority  of  parliament,  unless  by  means  of  such  a  general 
dispensing  po\yer  as  no  parliament  would  endure.2  And  it  is 
impossible  to  question  that  a  bill  for  coniirming  it  would  have 
easily  passed  through  this  house  of  commons  had  it  not  been 
for  the  resistance  of  the  government. 

Charles  now  dissolved  the  convention  parliament,  having 
Convention  obtained  from  it  what  was  immediately  necessary, 
parliament  but  well  aware  that  he  could  better  accomplish  his 
objects  with  another.3  It  was  studiously  incul 
cated  by  the  royalist  lawyers,  that,  as  this  assembly  had  not 
been  summoned  by  the  king's  writ,  none  of  its  acts  could 
have  any  real  validity,  except  by  the  confirmation  of  a  true 
parliament.4  This  doctrine,  being  applicable  to  the  act  of 

1  Parl.  Hist.  141,  152.     Clarendon,  76,  houses.    His  speech  is  long  and  eloquent, 
most  strangely  observes  on  this,   "Some  expressive   of   nothing  but    satisfaction, 
of  the  leaders   brought   a  bill  into  the  and  recommending  harmony  to  all  class- 
house  for  the  making  that  declaration  a  es.     One  passage  is  eloquent  enough  to 
law,  which  was  suitable  to  their  other  be  extracted :   •'  They  are   too   much  in 
acts  of  ingenuity  to  keep  the  church  for-  love  with  England,  too  partial  to  it,  who 
ever    under    the    same    indulgence    and  believe  it  the  best  country  in  the  world; 
without  any   settlement ;    which    being  there  is  a  better  earth,  and  a  better  air, 
quickly  perceived,  there  was  no  further  and   better,    that   is,   a  warmer   sun  in 
progress  in  it."     The  bill  was  brought  in  other  countries  ;    but   we  are   no  more 
by  sir  Matthew  Hale.  than  just  when  we  say  that  England  is 

2  Collier,    who   of   course   thinks   this  an  enclosure  of  the  best  people  in  the 
declaration    an    encroachment    on    the  world,  when  they  are  well  informed  and 
church,    as   well    as    on    the    legislative  instructed ;  a  people,  in  sobriety  of  con- 
power,   says,    i4  For  this    reason   it   was  science,    the   most  devoted    to   God  Al- 
overlooked  at  the  assizes  and  sessions  in  mighty ;  in  the  integrity  of  their  affec- 
several  places  in  the  country,  where  the  tions,  the  most  dutiful  to  the  king;  in 
dissenting  ministers  were  indicted  for  not  their  good    manners    and    inclinations, 
conforming    pursuant    to    the    laws    in  most  regardful  and  loving  to  the  nobility  ; 
force:  "  p.  876.     Neal  confirms  this,  586,  no  nobility  in  Europe  so  entirely  beloved 
and  Rennet's  Register,  374.  by   the  people  ;  there  may  be  more  awe 

3  [After   the   king  had  concluded  his  and  fear  of  them,  but  no  such  respect 
own  speech  by  giving  the  royal  assent  to  towards  them  as  in  England.      I  beseech 
many  bills  at  the  prorogation  of  the  con-  your  lordships  do    not    undervalue  this 
vention  parliament,   the  lord  chancellor  love,''  &c.     Parl.  Hist.  iv.  170.  — 1845.] 
Hyde   (not   then  a   peer)  requested  his  4  Life  of  Clarendon,  74.     A  plausible 
majesty's  permission  to  address  the  two  and  somewhat  dangerous  attack  had  been 


CHA.  II.—  1GGO-73.     THE   NEW   PARLIAMENT.  309 

indemnity,  left  the  kingdom  in  a  precarious  condition  till  an 
undeniable  security  could  be  obtained,  and  rendered  the  dis 
solution  almost  necessary.  Another  parliament  was  called, 
of  very  different  composition  from  the  last.  Possession  and 
the  standing  ordinances  against  royalists  had  enabled  the 
secluded  members  of  1648,  that  is,  the  adherents  of  the  long 
parliament,  to  stem  with  some  degree  of  success  the  impet 
uous  tide  of  loyalty  in  the  last  elections,  and  put  them  almost 
upon  an  equality  with  the  court.  But  in  the  new  assembly 
cavaliers  and  the  sons  of  cavaliers  entirely  predominated  ; 
the  great  families,  the  ancient  gentry,  the  episcopal  clergy, 
resumed  their  influence ;  the  presbyterians  and  sectarians 
feared  to  have  their  offences  remembered ;  so  that  we  may 
rather  be  surprised  that  about  fifty  or  sixty  who  had  be 
longed  to  the  opposite  side  found  places  in  such  a  parliament, 
than  that  its  general  complexion  should  be  decidedly  royalist. 
The  presbyterian  faction  seemed  to  lie  prostrate  at  the  feet 
of  those  over  whom  they  had  so  long  triumphed,  without  any 
force  of  arms  or  civil  convulsion,  as  if  the  king  had  been 
brought  in  against  their  will.  Nor  did  the  cavaliers  fail  to 
treat  them  as  enemies  to  monarchy,  though  it  was  notorious 
that  the  restoration  was  chiefly  owing  to  their  endeavors.1 

The  new  parliament  gave  the  first  proofs  of  their  disposi 
tion  by  voting  that  all  their  members  should  re 
ceive  the  sacrament  on  a  certain  day  according  to  complexion 
the  rites  of  the  church  of  England:  and  that  the  of  the  new 

i  i  i  11111  11       parliament. 

solemn  league  and  covenant  should  be  burned  by 

made  on  the  authority  of  this  parliament  general.      Nothing  more,  probably,  took 

from  an  opposite  quarter,  in  a  pamphlet  place.     Parl.  Hist.  145, 157-     This  was  in 

•written  by  one  Drake,  under    the  name  November     and     December    1660 :     but 

of  Thomas  Philips,  entitled  "  The  Long  Drake's    book  seems  still    to   have  been 

Parliament   Revived,"  and   intended    to  in   considerable  circulation  ;    at   least  I 

prove  that  by  the  act  of  the  late  king,  have  two  editions  of  it,  both  bearing  the 

providing  that  they  should    not  be  dis-  date  of  1661.     The  argument  it  contains 

solved    but    by  the    concurrence  of  the  is  purely  legal ;  but  the  aim  must  have 

whole  legislature,  they  were  still  in  ex-  been  to  serve  the  presbyterian  or  parlia- 

istence ;    and   that   the    king's    demise,  mentariau  cause.     [The  next  parliament 

which  legally  puts  an  end  to  a  parlia-  never  give  their  predecessors  any  other 

meut,  could  not  affect  one  that  was  de-  name  in  the  Journals  than  "  the  last  as- 

clared  permanent  by  so  direct  an  enact-  sembly."  ] 

ment.  This  argument  seems  by  no  l  Complaints  of  insults  on  the  presby- 
meaus  inconsiderable ;  but  the  times  terian  clergy  were  made  to  the  late  par- 
were  not  such  as  to  admit  of  technical  liauient.  Parl.  Hist.  160.  The  Anglicans 
reasoning.  The  convention  parliament,  inveighed  grossly  against  them  on  the 
after  questioning  Drake,  finally  sent  up  score  of  their  past  conduct,  notwith- 
articles  of  impeachment  against  him;  standing  the  act  of  indemnity.  Rennet's 
but  the  lords,  after  hearing  him  in  his  Register,  156.  See,  as  a  specimen,  South 's 
defence,  when  he  confessed  his  fault,  left  Sermons,  passim. 
him  to  be  prosecuted  by  the  attorney- 


310 


CONDEMNATION  OF   VANE. 


CHAP.  XL 


the  common  hangman.1  They  excited  still  more  serious  alarm 
by  an  evident  reluctance  to  confirm  the  late  act  of  indemnity, 
which  the  king  at  the  opening  of  the  session  had  pressed 
upon  their  attention.  Those  who  had  suffered  the  sequestra 
tions  and  other  losses  of  a  vanquished  party  could  not  en 
dure  to  abandon  what  they  reckoned  a  just  reparation.  But 
Clarendon  adhered  with  equal  integrity  and  prudence  to  this 
fundamental  principle  of  the  Restoration ;  and,  after  a  strong 
message  from  the  king  on  the  subject,  the  commons  were 
content  to  let  the  bill  pass  with  no  new  exceptions.2  They 
gave,  indeed,  some  relief  to  the  ruined  cavaliers  by  voting 
60,000/.  to  be  distributed  among  that  class ;  but  so  inade 
quate  a  compensation  did  not  assuage  their  discontents. 

It  has  been  mentioned  above  that  the  late  house  of  com- 
Condemna-  mons  had  consented  to  the  exception  of  Vane  and 
tionofVane.  Lambert  from  indemnity  on  the  king's  promise 
that  they  should  not  suffer  death.  They  had  lain  in  the 
Tower  accordingly,  without  being  brought  to  trial.  The 
regicides  who  had  come  in  under  the  proclamation  were 
saved  from  capital  punishment  by  the  former  act  of  indem 
nity.  But  the  present  parliament  abhorred  this  lukewarm 
lenity.  A  bill  was  brought  in  for  the  execution  of  the  king's 
judges  in  the  Tower;  and  the  attorney-general  was  re- 


1  Journals,  17th  of  May,  1661.     The 
previous   question    was    moved    on  this 
vote,  but  lost  by  228  to  103  ;  Morice,  the 
secretary  of  state,  being  one  of  the  tellers 
for   the   minority.     Monk,  I   believe,  to 
whom   Morice   owed    his    elevation,    did 
what  he  could  to  prevent  violent  meas 
ures  against  the  presbyterians.      Alder 
man  Love  was  suspended  from  sitting  in 
the  house,  J  uly  3,  for  not  having  taken 
the  sacrament.     I  suppose  that  he  after 
wards  conformed ;  for  he  became  an  ac 
tive  member  of  the  opposition. 

2  Journals.  June  14,  &c. ;  Parl.  Hist. 
209  ;  Life  of  Clarendon,  71  ;  Burnet,  230. 
A  bill  discharging  the  loyalists  from  all 
interest    exceeding   three    per    cent.  on. 
debts  contracted  before  the  wars  passed 
the  commons,  but   was   dropped  in  the 
other  house.      The  great  discontent  of 
this  party  at  the  indemnity  continued  to 
show  itself  in  subsequent  sessions.    Clar 
endon  mentions,  with  much  censure,  that 
many   private    bills  passed   about  1662, 
annulling   conveyances   of    lands    made 
during  the  troubles  :   p.  162,  K53.     One 
remarkable  instance  ought  to  be  noticed 
as  having   been  greatly  misrepresented. 
At  the  earl  of  Derby's  seat  of  Knowsley 


in  Lancashire  a  tablet  is  placed  to  com 
memorate  the  ingratitude  of  Charles  II. 
in  having  refused  the  royal  assent  to  a 
bill  which  had  passed  both  houses  for  re 
storing  the  son  of  the  earl  of  Derby,  who 
had  lost  his  life  in  the  royal  cause,  to  his 
family  estate.  This  has  been  so  ofteu 
reprinted  by  tourists  and  novelists  that  it 
passes  currently  for  a  just  reproach  on  the 
king's  memory.  It  was.  however,  in  fact, 
one  of  his  most  honorable  actions.  The 
truth  is,  that  the  cavalier  faction  carried 
through  parliament  a  bill  to  make  void 
the  conveyances  of  some  manors  which 
lord  Derby  had  voluntarily  sold  before 
the  restoration,  in  the  very  face  of  the  act 
of  indemnity,  and  against  all  law  and 
justice.  Clarendon,  who,  together  with 
some  very  respectable  peers,  had  protest 
ed  against  this  measure  in  the  upper 
house,  thought  it  his  duty  to  recommend 
the  king  to  refuse  his  assent.  Lords' 
Journals,  Feb.  6  and  May  14. 1662.  There 
is  so  much  to  blame  in  both  the  minister 
and  his  master,  that  it  is  but  fair  to  give 
them  credit  for  that  which  the  pardon 
able  prejudices  of  the  family  interested 
have  led  it  to  misstate. 


CHA.  II.  — 1660-73.  ITS   IXJUSTICE.  311 

quested  to  proceed  against  Vane  and  Lambert.1  The  former 
was  dropped  in  the  house  of  lords ;  but  those  formidable 
chiefs  of  the  commonwealth  were  brought  to  trial.  Their 
indictments  alleged  as  overt  acts  of  high-treason  against 
Charles  II.  their  exercise  of  civil  and  military  functions 
under  the  usurping  government ;  though  not,  as  far  as  ap 
pears,  expressly  directed  against  the  king's  authority,  and 
certainly  not  against  his  person.  Under  such  an  accusation 
many  who  had  been  the  most  earnest  in  the  king's  restora 
tion  might  have  stood  at  the  bar.  Thousands  might  apply 
to  themselves,  in  the  case  of  Vane,  the  beautiful  expression 
of  Mrs.  Ilutchinson,  as  to  her  husband's  feelings  at  the  death 
of  the  regicides,  that  "  he  looked  on  himself  as  judged  in 
their  judgment,  and  executed  in  their  execution."  The 
stroke  fell  upon  one,  the  reproach  upon  many. 

The  condemnation  of  sir  Henry  Vane  was  very  question 
able,  even  according  to  the  letter  of  the  law.  It  Its  jn. 
was  plainly  repugnant  to  its  spirit.  An  excellent  Justice- 
statute  enacted  under  Henry  VII.,  and  deemed  by  some 
great  writers  to  be  only  declaratory  of  the  common  law,  but 
occasioned,  no  doubt,  by  some  harsh  judgments  of  treason 
which  had  been  pronounced  during  the  late  competition  of 
the  houses  of  York  and  Lancaster,  assured  a  perfect  in 
demnity  to  all  persons  obeying  a  king  for  the  time  being, 
however  defective  his  title  might  come  to  be  considered 
when  another  claimant  should  gain  possession  of  the  throne. 
It  established  the  duty  of  allegiance  to  the  existing  govern 
ment  upon  a  general  principle  ;  but  in  its  terms  it  certainly 
presumed  that  government  to  be  a  monarchy.  This  fur 
nished  the  judges  upon  the  trial  of  Vane  with  a  distinction 
of  which  they  willingly  availed  themselves.  They  pro- 

1  Commons'  Journals,  1st  July,  1661.  Dec.  4,  on  the  motion  of  colonel  Titus, 
A  division  took  place,  November  26,  on  to  be  disinterred  and  hanged  on  a  gibbet, 
a  motion  to  lay  this  bill  aside,  in  consid-  The  lords  concurred  iu  this  order;  but 
erationof  the  king's  proclamation  :  which  the  mode  of  address  to  the  king  would 
was  lost  by  124  to  109:  lord  Cornbury  have  been  more  regular.  Parl.  Hist.  151. 
(Clarendon's  son)  being  a  teller  for  the  [These  bodies  had  been  previously  re- 
Noes.  The  bill  was  sent  up  to  the  lords  moved  from  Westminster  Abbey,  and 
Jan.  27.  1662.  See  also  Parl.  Hist.  217,  "cast  together  into  a  pit  at  the  back  door 
225.  Some  of  their  proceedings  trespassed  of  the  prebendaries'  lodgings."  The  body 
upon  the  executive  power,  and  infringed  of  Blake  was  the  same  day.  Sept.  12, 1660, 
the  prerogative  they  labored  to  exalt,  taken  up  and  "  buried  in  St.  Margaret's 
But  long  interruption  of  the  due  course  of  churchyard.''  It  appears  to  have  been 
the  constitution  had  made  its  boundaries  done  by  an  order  of  the  king  to  the 
indistinct.  Thus,  in  the  convention  par-  dean  of  Westminster.  Rennet's  Register, 
liiinuMit.  the  bodies  of  Cromwell.  Brad-  p.  536.] 
shaw,  Ireton.  aud  others,  were  ordered, 


312  VIOLATION   OF  CHARLES'S   PROMISE.        CHAP.  XL 

ceeded,  however,  beyond  all  bounds  of  constitutional  prec 
edents  and  of  common  sense  when  they  determined  that 
Charles  II.  had  been  king  de  facto  as  well  as  de  jure  from 
the  moment  of  his  father's  death,  though,  in  the  words  of 
their  senseless  sophistry,  "  kept  out  of  the  exercise  of  his 
royal  authority  by  traitors  and  rebels."  He  had  indeed  as 
sumed  the  title  during  his  exile,  and  had  granted  letters 
patent  for  different  purposes,  which  it  was  thought  proper  to 
hold  good  after  his  restoration ;  thus  presenting  the  strange 
anomaly,  and  as  it  were  contradiction  in  terms,  of  a  king 
who  began  to  govern  in  the  twelfth  year  of  his  reign.  But 
this  had  not  been  the  usage  of  former  times.  Edward  IV., 
Richard  III.,  Henry  VIL,  had  dated  their  instruments  either 
from  their  proclamation  or  at  least  from  some  act  of  posses 
sion.  The  question  was  not  whether  a  right  to  the  crown 
descended  according  to  the  laws  of  inheritance,  but  whether 
such  a  right,  divested  of  possession,  could  challenge  allegiance 
as  a  bounden  duty  by  the  law  of  England.  This  is  expressly 
determined  in  the  negative  by  lord  Coke  in  his  Third  Insti 
tute,  who  maintains  a  king  "  that  hath  right,  and  is  out  of 
possession,"  not  to  be  within  the  statute  of  treasons.  He 
asserts  also  that  a  pardon  granted  by  him  would  be  void  ; 
which  by  parity  of  reasoning  must  extend  to  all  his  patents.1 
We  may  consider,  therefore,  the  execution  of  Vane  as  one 
of  the  most  reprehensible  actions  of  this  bad  reign.  It  not 
only  violated  the  assurance  of  indemnity,  but  introduced  a 
principle  of  sanguinary  proscription,  which  would  render  the 
return  of  what  is  called  legitimate  government,  under  any 
circumstances,  an  intolerable  curse  to  a  nation.2 

The  king  violated  his  promise  by  the  execution  of  Vane, 
as  much  as  the  judges  strained  the  law  by  his  conviction. 
He  had  assured  the  last  parliament,  in  answer  to  their  ad 
dress,  that,  if  Vane  and  Lambert  should  be  attainted  by  law, 
he  would  not  suffer  the  sentence  to  be  executed.  Though 
the  present  parliament  had  urged  the  attorney-general  to 
bring  these  delinquents  to  trial,  they  had  never,  by  an  ad 
dress  to  the  king,  given  him  a  color  for  retracting  his 
promise  of  mercy.  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  Clarendon 
does  not  say  a  syllable  about  Vane's  trial ;  which  affords  a 

1  3  Inst.  7.     This  appears  to  have  been  2  Foster,   in   his     Discourse  on    High 

held  in  Bagot's  case,  9  Edw.  4.     See  also  Treason,    evidently    intimates    that     he 

Higuen's  View  of  the  English  Constitu-  thought  the  conviction  of  Vane  uujusti- 

tion,  1709.  fiable. 


CHA.  II.  — 1660-73.    CROWN'S  PREROGATIVES  RESTORED.     313 

strong  presumption  that  he  thought  it  a  breach  of  the  act  of 
indemnity.  But  we  have  on  record  a  remarkable  letter  of 
the  king  to  his  minister,  wherein  he  expresses  his  resentment 
at  Vane's  bold  demeanor  during  his  trial,  and  intimates  a 
wish  for  his  death,  though  with  some  doubts  whether  it  could 
be  honorably  done.1  Doubts  of  such  a  nature  never  lasted 
long  with  tliis  prince ;  and  Vane  suffered  the  week  after. 
Lambert,  whose  submissive  behavior  had  furnished  a  contrast 
with  that  of  Vane,  was  sent  to  Guernsey,  and  remained  a 
prisoner  for  thirty  years.  The  royalists  have  spoken  of 
Vane  with  extreme  dislike ;  yet  it  should  be  remembered 
that  he  was  not  only  incorrupt,  but  disinterested,  inflexible  in 
conforming  his  public  conduct  to  his  principles,  and  averse  to 
every  sanguinary  or  oppressive  measure ;  qualities  not  very 
common  in  revolutionary  chiefs,  and  which  honorably  dis 
tinguished  him  from  the  Lamberts  and  Haslerigs  of  his 
party.2 

No  time  was  lost,  as  might  be  expected  from  the  temper 
of  the  commons,  in  replacing  the  throne   on   its  Acts  re- 
constitutional  basis  after  the  rude  encroachments  P1:lc|ns the 
of  the  long  parliament.     They  declared  that  there  its  prerog- 
was  no  legislative  power  in  either  or  both  houses  atlves- 
without  the  king ;  that  the  league  and  covenant  was  unlaw 
fully  imposed ;  that  the  sole  supreme  command  of  the  militia, 
and  of  all  forces  by  sea  and  land,  had  ever  been  by  the  laws 
of  England  the  undoubted  right  of  the  crown  ;  that  neither 
house  of  parliament  could  pretend  to  it,  nor  could  lawfully 
levy  any  war  offensive   or  defensive   against   his   majesty.3 
These  last  words  appeared  to  go  to  a  dangerous  length,  and 
to  sanction  the  suicidal  doctrine  of  absolute  non-resistance. 
They  made  the  law  of  high-treason  more  strict  during  the 
king's  life  in  pursuance  of  a  precedent  in  the  reign  of  Eliza- 

l  -;  The  relation  that  has  been  made  to  endon's  hand, ';  The  king,  June  7,1662.'' 

me  of  sir  II.  Vane's  carriage  yesterday  iu  Vane   was   beheaded   Juue   14.      Burnet 

the  Hall  is  the  occasion  of  this  letter,  (note   in  Oxford  edition),  p.  164.     Har- 

which,  if  I  aui  rightly  informed,  was  so  ris's  Lives,  v.  32. 

insolent  as  to  justify  all  he  had  done  ;  ac-  2  Vane  gave  up  the  profits  of  his  place 
knowledging  no  supreme  power  in  Eng-  as  treasurer  of  the  navy,  which,  accord- 
land  but  a  parliament,  and  many  things  ing  to  his  patent,  would  have  amounted 
to  that  purpose.  You  have  had  a  true  to  30.CXXW.  per  annum,  if  we  may  rely  on 
account  of  all ;  and  if  he  has  given  new  on  Harris's  Life  of  Cromwell,  p.  260. 
occasion  to  be  hanged,  certainly  he  is  too  3  13  Car.  2.  c.  1  &  6.  A  bill  for  set- 
dangerous  a  man  to  let  live,  if  we  can  tliug  the  militia  had  been  much  opposed 
honestly  put  him  out  of  the  way.  Think  in  the  convention  parliament,  as  tending 
of  this,  and  give  me  some  account  of  it  to  bring  in  martial  law.  Parl.  Hist.  iv. 
to-morrow;  till  when,  I  have  no  more  to  145.  It  seems  to  have  dropped. 
*ay  to  you.  C."  Indorsed  in  lord  Clar- 


314  CORPORATION  ACT.  CHAP.  XL 

beth.1  They  restored  the  bishops  to  their  seats  in  the  house 
of  lords  ;  a  step  which  the  last  parliament  would  never  have 
been  induced  to  take,  but  which  met  with  little  opposition 
from  the  present.2  The  violence  that  had  attended  their  ex 
clusion  seemed  a  sufficient  motive  for  rescinding  a  statute  so 
improperly  obtained,  even  if  the  policy  of  maintaining  the 
spiritual  peers  were  somewhat  doubtful.  The  remembrance 
of  those  tumultuous  assemblages  which  had  overawed  their 
predecessors  in  the  winter  of  1641,  and  at  other  times,  pro 
duced  a  law  against  disorderly  petitions.  This  statute  pro 
vides  that  no  petition  or  address  shall  be  presented  to  the 
king  or  either  house  of  parliament  by  more  than  ten  persons ; 
nor  shall  any  one  procure  above  twenty  persons  to  consent 
or  set  their  hands  to  any  petition  for  alteration  of  matters 
established  by  law  in  church  or  state,  unless  with  the  pre 
vious  order  of  three  justices  of  the  county,  or  the  major  part 
of  the  grand  jury.3 

Thus  far  the  new  parliament  might  be  said  to  have  acted 
Corporation  chiefly  on  a  principle  of  repairing  the  breaches 
recently  made  in  our  constitution,  and  of  rees 
tablishing  the  just  boundaries  of  the  executive  power ;  nor 
would  much  objection  have  been  offered  to  their  measures, 
had  they  gone  no  farther  in  the  same  course.  The  act  for 
regulating  corporations  is  much  more  questionable,  and  dis 
played  a  determination  to  exclude  a  considerable  portion  of 
the  community  from  their  civil  rights.  It  enjoined  all  magis 
trates  and  persons  bearing  offices  of  trust  in  corporations  to 
swear  that  they  believed  it  unlawful,  on  any  pretence  what 
ever,  to  take  arms  against  the  king,  and  that  they  abhorred 
the  traitorous  position  of  bearing  arms  by  his  authority 
against  his  person,  or  against  those  that  are  commissioned  by 
him.  They  were  also  to  renounce  all  obligation  arising  out 
of  the  oath  called  the  solemn  league  and  covenant ;  in  case 
of  refusal,  to  be  immediately  removed  from  office.  Those 
elected  in  future  were,  in  addition  to  the  same  oaths,  to  have 
received  the  sacrament  within  one  year  before  their  election 
according  to  the  rites  of  the  English  church.4  These  pro- 

1  C.  1.  3  c.5. 

2  C.  2.     The  only  opposition  made  to  *  13  Car.  2,  sess.  2,  c.  1.     This  bill  did 
this  was  in  the  house  of  lords  by  the  earl  not  pass   without    strong    opposition  in 
of  Bristol  and  some  of  the  Roman  catholic  the  commons.     It  was  carried  at  last  by 
party,  who  thought  the   bishops  would  182  to  77;  Journals,  July  5;   but  on  a 
not  be  brought  into  a  toleration  of  their  previous  division  for  its  commitment  the 
religion.     Life  of  Clarendon,  p.  138.  numbers    were    185    to    136.     June   20. 


CHA.  II.  — 1G60-73.       THE   TRIENNIAL   ACT.  315 

visions  struck  at  the  heart  of  the  presbyterian  party,  whose 
strength  lay  in  the  little  oligarchies  of  corporate  towns,  which 
directly  or  indirectly  returned  to  parliament  a  very  large 
proportion  of  its  members.  Yet  it  rarely  happens  that  a 
political  faction  is  crushed  by  the  terrors  of  an  oath.  Many 
of  the  more  rigid  presbyterians  refused  the  conditions  im 
posed  by  this  act ;  but  the  majority  found  pretexts  for  quali 
fying  themselves. 

It  could  not  yet  be  said  that  this  loyal  assembly  had  med 
dled  with  those  safeguards  of  public  liberty  which  Re  eaj  of 
had  been  erected  by  their  great  predecessors  in  the  tneu- 
1641.  The  laws  that  Falkland  and  Hampden  nialact> 
had  combined  to  provide,  those  bulwarks  against  the  ancient 
exorbitance  of  prerogative,  stood  unscathed  ;  threatened  from 
afar,  but  not  yet  betrayed  by  the  garrison.  But  one  of  these, 
the  bill  for  triennial  parliaments,  wounded  the  pride  of 
royalty,  and  gave  scandal  to  its  worshippers  ;  not  so  much 
on  account  of  its  object,  as  of  the  securities  provided  against 
its  violation.  If  the  king  did  not  summon  a  fresh  parliament 
within  three  years  after  a  dissolution,  the  peers  were  to  meet 
and  issue  writs  of  their  own  accord  ;  if  they  did  not  within  a 
certain  time  perform  this  duty,  the  sheriffs  of  every  county 
were  to  take  it  on  themselves ;  and,  in  default  of  all  con 
stituted  authorities,  the  electors  might  assemble  without  any 
regular  summons  to  choose  representatives.  It  was  manifest 
that  the  king  must  have  taken  a  fixed  resolution  to  trample 
on  a  fundamental  law,  before  these  irregular  tumultuous 
modes  of  redress  could  be  called  into  action ;  and  that  the 
existence  of  such  provisions  could  not  in  any  degree  weaken 
or  endanger  the  legal  and  limited  monarchy.  But  the  doc 
trine  of  passive  obedience  had  now  crept  from  the  homilies 
into  the  statute-book ;  the  parliament  had  not  scrupled  to  de 
clare  the  unlawfulness  of  defensive  war  against  the  king's 
person  ;  and  it  was  but  one  step  more  to  take  away  all  direct 
means  of  counteracting  his  pleasure.  Bills  were  accordingly 
more  than  once  ordered  to  be  brought  in  for  repealing  the 
triennial  act ;  but  no.  further  steps  were  taken  till  the  king 
thought  it  at  length  necessary  in  the  year  1064  to  give  them 
an  intimation  of  his  desires.1  A  vague  notion  had  partially 

Prynne  was  afterwards   reprimanded  by  submissive  apology,  though  the  censure 

the    speaker    for  publishing  a  pamphlet  was  pronounced  iu  a  very  harsh  manner, 

against  this  act,  July  15 ;  but  his  courage  l  Journals,  3d  April,  1662 ;  10th  March, 

had  now  forsaken  him ;  and  he  made  a  1663. 


316  REPEAL   OF   THE   TRIENNIAL  ACT.        CHAP.  XI. 

gained  ground  that  no  parliament,  by  virtue  of  that  bill, 
could  sit  for  more  than  three  years.  In  allusion  to  this,  he 
told  them,  on  opening  the  session  of  1664,  that  he  "had  often 
read  over  that  bill ;  and,  though  there  was  no  color  for  the 
fancy  of  the  determination  of  the  parliament,  yet  he  would 
not  deny  that  he  had  always  expected  them  to  consider  the 
wonderful  clauses  in  that  bill,  which  passed  in  a  time  very 
uncareful  for  the  dignity  of  the  crown  or  the  security  of  the 
people.  He  requested  them  to  look  again  at  it.  For  him 
self,  he  loved  parliaments  ;  he  was  much  beholden  to  them  ; 
he  did  not  think  the  crown  could  ever  be  happy  with 
out  frequent  parliaments ;  "  but  assure  yourselves,"  he  con 
cluded,  "  if  I  should  think  otherwise,  I  would  never  suffer  a 
parliament  to  come  together  by  the  means  prescribed  by  that 
bill."  1 

So  audacious  a  declaration,  equivalent  to  an  avowed  de 
sign,  in  certain  circumstances,  of  preventing  the  execution 
of  the  laws  by  force  of  arms,  was  never  before  heard  from 
the  lips  of  an  English  king  ;  and  would  in  any  other  times 
have  awakened  a  storm  of  indignation  from  the  commons. 
They  were,  however,  sufficiently  compliant  to  pass  a  bill 
for  the  repeal  of  that  which  had  been  enacted  with  unani 
mous  consent  in  1641,  and  had  been  hailed  as  the  great 
palladium  of  constitutional  monarchy.  The  preamble  recites 
the  said  act  to  have  been  "  in  derogation  of  his  majesty's 
just  rights  and  prerogative  inherent  in  the  imperial  crown 
of  this  realm  for  the  calling  and  assembling  of  parliaments." 
The  bill  then  repeals  and  annuls  every  clause  and  article  in 
the  fullest  manner  ;  yet,  with  an  inconsistency  not  unusual 
in  our  statutes,  adds  a  provision  that  parliaments  shall  not 
in  future  be  intermitted  for  above  three  years  at  the  most. 
This  clause  is  evidently  framed  in  a  different  spirit  from  the 
original  bill,  and  may  be  attributed  to  the  influence  of  that 
party  in  the  house  which  had  begun  to  oppose  the  court,  and, 
already  showed  itself  in  considerable  strength.2  Thus  the 
effect  of  this  compromise  was  that  the  law  of  the  long  par 
liament  subsisted  as  to  its  principle,  without  those  unusual 

1  Parl.    Hist.    289.     Clarendon   speaks  during     the    passage    of    this   bill,   and 
very  unjustly  of  the    triennial  act,  for-  though,  as  far  as  appears,  on  subordinate 
getting  that  he  had  himself  concurred  in  points,  yet   probably  springing  from  an 
it.     P.  221.  opposition    to    its    principle.  March   28, 

2  16  Car.    II.   c.  1.     We   find   by  the  1664.     There  was  by  this  time  a  regular 
Journals  that  some  divisions  took  place  party  formed  against  the  court. 


CHA.  II.  — 1660-73.      CLARENDON'S   PRINCIPLES.  317 

clauses  which  had  been  enacted  to  render  its  observance 
secure.  The  king  assured  them,  in  giving  his  assent  to  the 
repeal,  that  he  would  not  be  a  day  more  without  a  parlia 
ment  on  that  account.  But  the  necessity  of  those  securities, 
and  the  mischiefs  of  that  false  and  servile  loyalty  which  ab 
rogated  them,  became  manifest  at  the  close  of  the  present 
reign  ;  nearly  four  years  having  elapsed  between  the  disso 
lution  of  Charles's  last  parliament  and  his  death. 

Clarendon,  the  principal  adviser,  as  yet,  of  the  king  since 
his  restoration  (for  Southampton  rather  gave  reputation  to 
the  administration  than  took  that  superior  influence  which 
belonged  to  his  place  of  treasurer),  has  thought  fit  to  stig 
matize  the  triennial  bill  with  the  epithet  of  infamous.  So 
\vholly  had  lie  divested  himself  of  the  sentiments  he  enter 
tained  at  the  beginning  of  the  long  parliament,  that  he  sought 
nothing  more  ardently  than  to  place  the  crown  again  in  a 
condition  to  run  into  those  abuses  and  excesses  against  which 
he  had  once  so  much  inveighed.  "  He  did  never  dissemble," 
he  says,  "  from  the  time  of  his  return  with  the  king,  that  the 
late  rebellion  could  never  be  extirpated  and  pulled  up  by 
the  roots,  till  the  king's  regal  and  inherent  power  and  pre 
rogative  should  be  fully  avowed  and  vindicated,  and  till  the 
usurpations  in  both  houses  of  parliament,  since  the  year 
1 640,  were  disclaimed  and  made  odious  ;  and  many  other 
excesses,  which  had  been  affected  by  both  before  that  time 
under  the  name  of  privileges,  should  be  restrained  or  ex 
plained.  For  all  which  reformation  the  kingdom  in  general 
was  very  well  disposed,  when  it  pleased  God  to  restore  the 
king  to  it.  The  present  parliament  had  done  much,  and 
would  willingly  have  prosecuted  the  same  method,  if  they 
had  had  the  same  advice  and  encouragement."  l  I  can  only 
understand  these  words  to  mean  that  they  might  have  been 
led  to  repeal  other  statutes  of  the  long  parliament,  besides 
the  triennial  act,  and  that  excluding  the  bishops  from  the 
house  of  peers ;  but,  more  especially,  to  restore  the  two 
great  levers  of  prerogative,  the  courts  of  star-chamber  and 
high-commission.  This  would  indeed  have  pulled  up  by  the 
roots  the  work  of  the  long  parliament,  which,  in  spite  of 
such  general  reproach,  still  continued  to  shackle  the  revived 
monarchy.  There  had  been  some  serious  attempts  at  this 
in  the  house  of  lords  durin  the  session  of  1661-2.  We 


318  CHARACTERISTIC   OF   THE  PARLIAMENT.     CHAP.  XL 

read  in  the  Journals  1  that  a  committee  was  appointed  to 
prepare  a  bill  for  repealing  all  acts  made  in  the  parliament 
begun  the  3d  day  of  November,  1640,  and  for  reenacting 
such  of  them  as  should  be  thought  fit.  This  committee 
some  time  after  2  reported  their  opinion,  "  that  it  was  fit  for 
the  good  of  the  nation  that  there  be  a  court  of  like  nature 
to  the  late  court  called  the  star-chamber  ;  but  desired  the 
advice  and  directions  of  the  house  in  these  particulars  fol 
lowing :  Who  should  be  judges  ?  What  matters  should  they 
be  judges  of?  By  what  manner  of  proceedings  should  they 
act  ? "  The  house,  it  is  added,  thought  it  not  fit  to  give 
star-chamber  any  particular  directions  therein,  but  left  it  to  the 
not  restored,  committee  to  proceed  as  they  would.  It  does  not 
appear  that  anything  farther  was  done  in  this  session  ;  but 
we  find  the  bill  of  repeal  revived  next  year.3  It  is,  how 
ever,  only  once  mentioned.  Perhaps  it  may  be  questionable 
whether,  even  amidst  the  fervid  loyalty  of  1GG1,  the  house 
of  commons  would  have  concurred  in  reestablishing  the  star- 
chamber.  They  had  taken  marked  precautions  in  passing 
an  act  for  the  restoration  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  that 
it  should  not  be  construed  to  restore  the  high-commission 
court,  or  to  give  validity  to  the  canons  of  1640,  or  to  en 
large  in  any  manner  the  ancient  authority  of  the  church.4 
A  tribunal  still  more  formidable  and  obnoxious  would  hardly 
have  found  favor  with  a  body  of  men  who,  as  their  behavior 
shortly  demonstrated,  might  rather  be  taxed  with  passion 
and  vindictiveness  towards  a  hostile  faction,  than  a  delib 
erate  willingness  to  abandon  their  English  rights  and  priv 
ileges. 

The  striking  characteristic  of  this  parliament  was  a  zeal 
ous  and  intolerant  attachment  to  the  established  church,  not 
losing  an  atom  of  their  aversion  to  popery  in  their  abhor 
rence  of  protestant  dissent.  In  every  former  parliament 
since  the  Reformation  the  country  party  (if  I  may  use  such 
a  word,  by  anticipation,  for  those  gentlemen  of  landed  es 
tates  who  owed  their  seats  to  their  provincial  importance, 
as  distinguished  from  courtiers,  lawyers,  and  dependants  on 
the  nobility)  had  incurred  with  rigid  churchmen  the  reproach 
of  puritanical  affections.  They  were  implacable  against 

i  Lord's  Journals,  23d  and  24th  Jan.        3  19th  March,  1663. 
1662.  4  13  Car.  II,  c.  12. 

-'  12th  Feb. 


CH A.  II.  —  1660-73.       DECEIT   OF   THE  KING.  319 

popery,  but  disposed  to  far  more  indulgence  with  respect  to 
non-conformity  than  the  very  different  maxims  of  Elizabeth 
and  her  successors  would  permit.  Yet  it  is  obvious  that  the 
puritan  commons  of  James  I.  and  the  high-church  commons 
of  Charles  II.  were  composed,  in  a  great  measure,  of  the 
same  families,  and  entirely  of  the  same  classes.  But,  as 
the  arrogance  of  the  prelates  had  excited  indignation,  and 
the  sufferings  of  the  scrupulous  clergy  begotten  sympathy 
in  one  age,  so  the  reversed  scenes  of  the  last  twenty  years 
had  given  to  the  former,  or  their  adherents,  the  advantage 
of  enduring  oppression  with  humility  and  fortitude,  and  dis 
played  in  the  latter,  or  at  least  many  of  their  number,  those 
odious  and  malevolent  qualities  which  adversity  had  either 
concealed  or  rendered  less  dangerous.  The  gentry,  con 
nected  for  the  most  part  by  birth  or  education  with  the 
episcopal  clergy,  could  not  for  an  instant  hesitate  between 
the  ancient  establishment  and  one  composed  of  men  whose 
eloquence  in  preaching  was  chiefly  directed  towards  the 
common  people,  and  presupposed  a  degree  of  enthusiasm 
in  the  hearer  which  the  higher  classes  rarely  possessed. 
They  dreaded  the  wilder  sectaries,  foes  to  property,  or  at 
least  to  its  political  influence,  as  much  as  to  the  regal  con 
stitution  ;  and  not  unnaturally,  though  without  perfect  fair 
ness,  confounded  the  presbyterian  or  moderate  non-conformist 
in  the  motley  crowd  of  fanatics,  to  many  of  whose  tenets  he 
at  least  more  approximated  than  the  church  of  England  min 
ister. 

There  is  every  reason  to  presume,  as  I  have  already  re 
marked,  that  the  king  had  no  intention  but  to  deceive  the 
presbyterians  and  their  friends  in  the  convention  Presb 
parliament    by  his  declaration  of  October,  1G60.1  torians 
He  proceeded,  after  the  dissolution  of  that  assem-  DyCthTeed 
bly  to  fill  up  the  number  of  bishops,  who  had  been  king- 
reduced  to  nine,  but  with  no  further  mention  of  suffragans, 

1  Clarendon,  in  his  Life,  p.  149,  says  Charles,  as  his  minister  well  knew,  could 

that  the  king  •'  had  received  the  presby-  not  read  a  common  Latin  book  (Clareu- 

terian  ministers  with  grace  ;  and  did  be-  don  State  Papers,   iii.  567).  and  had  no 

lieve  that  he  should  work  upon  them  by  manner  of  acquaintance  with  theological 

persuasions,  having  been  well  acquainted  learning,  unless  the   popular  argument 

with  their   common    arguments   by   the  in  favor  of  popery  is  so  to  be  called  ;  yet 

conversation  he  had  had  in  Scotland,  and  he  was  very  able  to  confute  men  who  had 

was  i-ery  able  to  confute  them.''     This  is  passed  their  lives  in  study,  on  a  subject 

one  of  the  strange  absurdities  into  which  involving    a   considerable    knowledge    of 

Clarendon's  prejudices  hurry  him  in  al-  Scripture  and  the  early  writers  in  their 

most  every  page  of  his  writings,  and  more  original  languages  ! 
especially  in  this  continuation  of  his  Life. 


320  SAVOY  CONFERENCE.         CHAP.  XL 

or  of  the  council  of  presbyters,  which  had  been  announced 
in  that  declaration.1  It  does  indeed  appear  highly  probable 
that  the  scheme  of  Usher  would  have  been  found  inconven 
ient  and  even  impracticable ;  and  reflecting  men  would 
perhaps  be  apt  to  say  that  the  usage  of  primitive  antiquity, 
upon  which  all  parties  laid  so  much  stress,  was  rather  a 
presumptive  argument  against  the  adoption  of  any  system 
of  church-government,  in  circumstances  so  widely  different, 
than  in  favor  of  it.  But  inconvenient  and  impracticable 
provisions  carry  with  them  their  own  remedy  ;  and  the  king 
might  have  respected  his  own  word,  and  the  wishes  of  a 
large  part  of  the  church,  without  any  formidable  danger  to 
episcopal  authority.  It  would  have  been,  however,  too  fla 
grant  a  breach  of  promise  (and  yet  hardly  greater  than  that 
just  mentioned)  if  some  show  had  not  been  made  of  desiring 
a  reconciliation  on  the  subordinate  details  of  religious  cere- 
Savoy  con-  monies  and  the  liturgy.  This  produced  a  confer- 
ference.  ence  j^jj  at  tne  savOy,  in  May,  1G61,  between 
twenty-one  Anglican  and  as  many  presbyterian  divines  :  the 
latter  were  called  upon  to  propose  their  objections  :  it  being 
the  part  of  the  others  to  defend.  They  brought  forward  so 
long  a  list  as  seemed  to  raise  little  hope  of  agreement.  Some 
of  these  objections  to  the  service,  as  may  be  imagined,  were 
rather  captious  and  hypercritical ;  yet  in  many  cases  they 
pointed  out  real  defects.  As  to  ceremonies,  they  dwelt  on 
the  same  scruples  as  had  from  the  beginning  of  Elizabeth's 
reign  produced  so  unhappy  a  discordance,  and  had  become 
inveterate  by  so  much  persecution.  The  conference  was 

1  Clarendon  admits  that  this  could  not  Blackburn,  a  non-conformist]  did  give  me 

have  been  done  till  the  former  parliament  many  stories  of  the   affronts  which  the 

was  dissolved  :  97.    This  means,  of  course,  clergy  receive   in   all    parts   of  England 

on  the  supposition  that  the  king's  word  from    the   gentry  and   ordinary  persons 

was  to  be  broken.     "  The  malignity  tow-  of  the  parish.''     November  9,  1663.     The 

ards  the  church,''  he  says,  "  seemed  in-  opposite  party  had    recourse    to  the  old 

creasing,  and  to  be  greater   than  at   the  weapons  of  pious  fraud.     I  have  a  tract 

coming  in  of  the  king."     Pepys,  in  his  containing  twenty-seven  instances  of  re- 

Diarv,  has  several  sharp  remarks  on  the  markable  judgments,  all  between  June, 

misconduct  and  unpopularity  of  the  bish-  1660,  and  April,  1661,  which  befell  divers 

ops.  though  himself  an  episcopalian  even  persons  for  reading  the  common  prayer 

before  the  restoration.     "  The  clergy  are  or  reviling  godly  ministers.     This  is  en- 

so  high  that  all  people  I  meet  with  do  titled  Annus  Mirabilis  ;  and,  besides  the 

protest  against  their  practice."     August  above    twenty-seven,    attests     so    many 

31,  1660.     "  I  am  convinced  in  my  judg-  prodigies,  that  the  name  is  by  no  means 

ment  that  the  present  clergy  will  never  misapplied.     The  bishops  made  large  for- 

heartily  go  down  with  the  generality  of  tunes  by  filling  up  leases.     Bin-net,  260. 

the  commons  of  England  ;  they  have  been  And  Clarendon  admits  them  to  have  been 

so  used  to  liberty  and  freedom,  and  they  too  rapacious,  though  he  tries  to  exten- 

are  so  acquainted  with  the  pride  and  de-  uate.     P.  48. 
bauchery  of  the  present  clergy.    He  [Mr. 


CHA.  II.  — 1G60-73.        SAVOY  CONFERENCE.  321 

managed  with  great  mutual  bitterness  and  recrimination; 
the  one  party  stimulated  by  vindictive  hatred  and  the  nat 
ural  arrogance  of  power  ;  the  other  irritated  by  the  manifest 
design  of  breaking  the  king's  faith,  and  probably  by  a  sense 
of  their  own  improvidence  in  ruining  themselves  by  his  res 
toration.  The  chief  blame,  it  cannot  be  dissembled,  ought 
to  fall  on  the  churchmen.  An  opportunity  was  afforded  of 
healing,  in  a  very  great  measure,  that  schism  and  separation 
which,  if  they  are  to  be  believed,  is  one  of  the  worst  evils 
that  can  befall  a  Christian  community.  They  had  it  in  their 
power  to  retain,  or  to  expel,  a  vast  number  of  worthy  and 
laborious  ministers  of  the  gospel,  with  whom  they  had,  in 
their  own  estimation,  no  essential  ground  of  difference.  They 
knew  the  king,  and  consequently  themselves,  to  have  been 
restored  with  (I  might  almost  say  by)  the  strenuous  coop 
eration  of  those  very  men  who  were  now  at  their  mercy. 
To  judge  by  the  rules  of  moral  wisdom,  or  of  the  spirit  of 
Christianity  (to  which,  notwithstanding  what  might  be  sa 
tirically  said  of  experience,  it  is  difficult  not  to  think  we 
have  a  right  to  expect  that  a  body  of  ecclesiastics  should 
pay  some  attention),  there  can  be  no  justification  for  the 
Anglican  party  on  this  occasion.  They  have  certainly  one 
apology,  the  best  very  frequently  that  can  be  offered  for 
human  infirmity  ;  they  had  sustained  a  long  and  unjust  ex 
clusion  from  the  emoluments  of  their  profession,  which  begot 
a  natural  dislike  towards  the  members  of  the  sect  that  had 
profited  at  their  expense,  though  not,  in  general,  personally 
responsible  for  their  misfortunes.1 

l  The  fullest  account  of  this  conference,  serve  to  display  the  spirit  with  which  the 

and  of  all  that  passed  as  to  the  conipre-  Anglicans  came  to  the  conference.     Upon 

hension  of  the  presbyterians,  is  to  be  read  Baxter    saying    that    their    proceedings 

in    Baxter,  whom    Neal    has    abridged,  would  alienate  a  great  part  of  the  na- 

Some  allowance  must,  of  course,  be  made  tion,  Stearne,  bishop  of  Carlisle,  observed 

for  the  resentment  of  Baxter  ;'  but  his  to  his  associates,  '•  He  will  not  say  king- 

known  integrity  makes  it  impossible  to  tlom.  lest  he  should  acknowledge  a'king." 

discredit  the  main  part  of  his  narration.  Baxter,  p.  338.     This  was  a  very  malig- 

Nor  is  it  necessary  to  rest  on  the  evidence  nant  reflection  on  a  man  who  was  well 

of  those  who  may  be  supposed  to  have  known  never  to  have  been  of  the  repub- 

the  prejudices  of  dissenters.     For  bishop  lican  party.     It  is  true  that  Baxter  seems 

Burnet  admits  that  all  the  concern  which  to  have   thought,  in  1659,  that  Richard 

seemed  to  employ  the  prelates' minds  was  Cromwell   would   have   served    the   turn 

not  only  to  make  no  alteration  on   the  better    than  Charles   Stuart;    and,  as  a 

presbyterians'  account,  but    to  straiten  presbyterian,   he   thought  very  rightly, 

the  terms  of  conformity  far  more  than  See   p.  207,   and   part   iii.  p.  71.      But, 

before   the  war.      Those,  however,    who  preaching   before   the  parliament.   April 

would  see  what  can  be  said   by  writers  30.  1660,  he  said  it  was  none  of  our  dif- 

of  high-church  principles,   may  consult  ferences  whether  we  should  be  loyal   to 

Kennet's  History  of  Charles  II.  p.  252,  or  our  king;   on  that  all  were  agreed.     1'. 

Collier,  p.  878.     One  little  anecdote  may  217. 
VOL.   II.                                      21 


322  RESULTS   OF   SAVOY   CONFERENCE.         CHAP.  XL 

The  Savoy  conference  broke  up  in  anger,  each  party  more 
exasperated  and  more  irreconcilable  than  before.  This  in 
deed  has  been  the  usual  consequence  of  attempts  to  bring 
men  to  an  understanding  on  religious  differences  by  explana 
tion  or  compromise.  The  public  was  apt  to  expect  too  much 
from  these  discussions ;  unwilling  to  believe  either  that  those 
who  have  a  reputation  for  piety  can  be  wanting  in  desire  to 
find  the  truth,  or  that  those  who  are  esteemed  for  ability  can 
miss  it.  And  this  expectation  is  heightened  by  the  lan 
guage  rather  too  strongly  held  by  moderate  and  peaceable  di 
vines,  that  little  more  is  required  than  an  understanding  of 
each  other's  meaning,  to  unite  conflicting  sects  in  a  common 
faith.  But  as  it  generally  happens  that  the  disputes  of  theo 
logians,  though  far  from  being  so  important  as  they  appear  to 
the  narrow  prejudices  and  heated  passions  of  the  combatants, 
are  not  wholly  nominal,  or  capable  of  being  reduced  to  a 
common  form  of  words,  the  hopes  of  union  and  settlement 
vanish  upon  that  closer  inquiry  which  conferences  and  schemes 
of  agreement  produce.  And  though  this  may  seem  rather 
applicable  to  speculative  controversies  than  to  such  matters 
as  were  debated  between  the  church  and  the  presbyterians 
at  the  Savoy  conference,  and  which  are  in  their  nature  more 
capable  of  compromise  than  articles  of  doctrine,  yet  the  con 
sequence  of  exhibiting  the  incompatibility  and  reciprocal 
alienation  of  the  two  parties  in  a  clearer  light  was  nearly  the 
same. 

A  determination  having  been  taken  to  admit  of  no  exten 
sive  comprehension,  it  was  debated  by  the  government 
whether  to  make  a  few  alterations  in  the  liturgy,  or  to  re 
store  the  ancient  service  in  every  particular.  The  former 
advice  prevailed,  though  with  no  desire  or  expectation  of 
conciliating  any  scrupulous  persons  by  the  amendments  in 
troduced.1  These  were  by  no  means  numerous,  and  in  some 

i  Life  of  Clarendon.  147.     He  observes  legend  of  Bel   and   the   Dragon,   for   no 

that  the  alterations  made  did  not  reduce  other  purpose  than  to  show  contempt  of 

one  of  the  opposite  party  to  the  obedience  their  scruples.     The  alterations  may  be 

of  the  church.     Now,  in  the  first  place,  seen   in    Rennet's    Register,    585.      The 

he  could  not  know  this  ;  and,  in  the  next,  most  important  was  the  restoration  of  a 

he  conceals  from  the  reader  that,  on  the  rubric  inserted  in   the  communion  ser- 

whole  matter,  the  changes  made  in  the  vice  under  Edward  VI.,  but  left  out  by 

liturgy  were  more  likely  to  disgust  than  Elizabeth,  declaring  against  any  corporal 

to  conciliate.     Thus,  the  puritans  having  presence   in   the    Lord's    supper.      This 

always  objected  to  the  number  of  saints'  gave  offence  to  some  of  those  M'ho  had 

days,  the  bishops  added  a  few  more  ;  and  adopted  that  opinion,  especially  the  duke 

the    former  having  given  very  plausible  of  York,  and  perhaps  tended  to  complete 

reasons  against  the  apocryphal  lessons  in  his  alienation  from  the  Anglican  church, 

the  daily  service,  the  others  inserted  the  Burnet,  i.  183. 


CHA.  II.  — 1060-73.       EPISCOPAL   ORDINATION".  323 

instances  rather  chosen  in  order  to  irritate  and  mock  the 
opposite  party  than  from  any  compliance  with  their  preju 
dices.  It  is  indeed  very  probable,  from  the  temper  of  the 
new  parliament,  that  they  would  not  have  come  into  more 
tolerant  and  healing  measures.  When  the  act  of  Act  of 
uniformity  was  brought  into  the  house  of  lords,  it  uniformity- 
was  found  not  only  to  restore  all  the  ceremonies  and  other 
matters  to  which  objection  had  been  taken,  but  to  contain 
fresh  clauses  more  intolerable  than  the  rest  to  the  presbyte- 
riau  clergy.  One  of  these  enacted  that  not  only  every 
benen'ced  minister,  but  fellow  of  a  college,  or  even  school 
master,  should  declare  his  unfeigned  assent  and  consent  to 
all  and  everything  contained  in  the  book  of  common  prayer.1 
These  words,  however  capable  of  being  eluded  and  explained 
away,  as  such  subscriptions  always  are,  seemed  to  amount,  in 
common  use  of  language,  to  a  complete  approbation  of  an 
entire  volume,  such  as  a  man  of  sense  hardly  gives  to  any 
book,  and  which,  at  a  time  when  scrupulous  persons  were 
with  great  difficulty  endeavoring  to  reconcile  themselves  to 
submission,  placed  a  new  stumbling-block  in  their  way,  which, 
without  abandoning  their  integrity,  they  found  it  impossible 
to  surmount. 

The  temper  of  those  who  chiefly  managed  church  affairs 
at  this  period  displayed  itself  in  another  innovation  tending 
to  the  same  end.  It  had  been  not  unusual  from  the  very 
beginnings  of  our  Reformation  to  admit  ministers  ordained 
in  foreign  protestant  churches  to  benefices  in  England.  No 
reordination  had  ever  been  practised  with  respect  to  those 
who  had  received  the  imposition  of  hands  in  a  regular  church; 
and  hence  it  appears  that  the  church  of  England,  whatever 
tenets  might  latterly  have  been  broached  in  controversy,  did 
not  consider  the  ordination  of  presbyters  invalid.  Though 
such  ordinations  as  had  taken  place  during  the  late  troubles, 
and  by  virtue  of  which  a  great  part  of  the  actual  clergy 
were  in  possession,  were  evidently  irregular,  on  the  suppo 
sition  that  the  English  episcopal  church  was  then  in  exist 
ence,  yet,  if  the  argument  from  such  great  convenience  as 
men  call  necessity  was  to  prevail,  it  was  surely  worth  while 
to  suffer  them  to  pass  without  question  for  the  present,  en 
acting  provisions,  if  such  were  required,  for  the  future.  But 
this  did  not  fall  in  with  the  passion  and  policy  of  the  bishops, 

1  18  &  14  Car.  II..  c.  iv.  5  3. 


324  EJECTION   OF  CHAP.  XI. 

who  found  a  pretext  for  their  worldly  motives  of  action  in 
the  supposed  divine  right  and  necessity  of  episcopal  succes 
sion  ;  a  theory  naturally  more  agreeable  to  arrogant  and 
dogmatical  ecclesiastics  than  that  of  Cranmer,  who  saw  no 
intrinsic  difference  between  bishops  and  priests  ;  or  of 
Hooker,  who  thought  ecclesiastical  superiorities,  like  civil, 
subject  to  variation  :  or  of  Stillingfleet,  who  had  lately 
pointed  out  the  impossibility  of  ascertaining  with  clearness 
the  real  constitution  of  the  apostolical  church  from  the  incon 
clusive  testimonies  that  either  Scripture  or  antiquity  fur 
nishes.  It  was  therefore  enacted  in  the  statute  for  uniform 
ity  that  no  person  should  hold  any  preferment  in  England 
without  having  received  episcopal  ordination.  There  seems 
to  be  little  or  no  objection  to  this  provision,  if  ordination  be 
considered  as  a  ceremony  of  admission  into  a  particular  so 
ciety  ;  but,  according  to  the  theories  which  both  parties  had 
embraced  in  that  age,  it  conferred  a  sort  of  mysterious  indel 
ible  character,  which  rendered  its  repetition  improper.1 

The  new  act  of  uniformity  succeeded  to  the  utmost  wishes 
.,.     .  of  its  promoters.     It  provided  that  every  minister 

should,  before  the  feast  of  St.  Bartholomew,  1662, 
publicly  declare  his  assent  and  consent  to  every 
thing  contained  in  the  book  of  common  prayer,  on 
pain  of  being  ipso  facto  deprived  of  his  benefice.2  Though 
even  the  long  parliament  had  reserved  a  fifth  of  the  profits 
to  those  who  were  rejected  for  refusing  the  covenant,  no 

1  Life  of  Clarendon.  152.     Burnet,  256.  pointed  for  the  former  ejectment,  when 
Morley,  afterwards  bishop  of  Winchester,  tour  times  as  many  of  the  loyal  clergy 
was  engaged  just  before  the  restoration  were  deprived  for  fidelity  to  their  sover- 
in   negotiating  with    the    presbyterians.  eign."     Southey's  Hist,  of  the  Church, 
They  stuck  out  for  the  negative  voice  of  ii.    467.      That   the   day   was  chosen  in 
the  council  of  presbyters  and  for  the  va-  order    to   deprive    the    incumbent  of   a 
lidity  of  their  ordinations.     Clar.  State  whole    year's    tithes.    Mr.    Southey   has 
Papers,  727.     He  had  two  schemes  to  get  learned  from  Burnet ;  and  it  aggravates 
over   the   difficulty  :   one   to   pass   them  the    cruelty    of    the    proceeding — but 
over  sub  sileutio  ;  the  other,  a  hypothet-  where  has  he  found  his  precedent  ?     The 
ical    reordination,    on    the    supposition  Anglican  clergy  were  rejected  for  refusing 
that  something  might  have  been  wanting  the  covenant  at  no  one  definite  period, 
before,  as  the  church  of  Home  practises  as,    on    recollection,    Mr.    S.    would    be 
about   rebaptization.      The  former  is   a  aware;   nor  can  I  find  any  one   parlia- 
curious  expedient  for  those  who  pretend  mentary   ordinance   in    Husband's    Col- 
to  think  presbyterian  ordinations  really  lection  that  mentions  St.  Bartholomew's 
null.     Id.  738.  day.     There  was  a  precedent  indeed  in 

2  The  day  fixed  upon  suggested  a  com-  that    case,    which    the    government    of 
parisoii  which,  though  severe,  was  obvi-  Charles  did  not  choose  to  follow.      One 
ous.     A  modern  writer  has  observed  on  fifth  of  the  income  had  been  reserved  for 
this.  "  They  were  careful  not  to  remem-  the  dispossessed   incumbents :   but  it  is 
ber  that  the  same  day,  and  for  the  same  said  that  they  often  did  not  get  them, 
reason,   because    the    tithes   were    com-  Keunet's  Register.  392. 

monly  due  at  Michaelmas,  had  been  ap- 


CHA.  II.  — 1660-73.       NON-CONFORMIST  CLERGY.  325 

mercy  could  be  obtained  from  the  still  greater  bigotry  of  the 
present;  and  a  motion  to  make  that  allowance  to  non-conform 
ing  ministers  was  lost  by  94  to  87.1  The  lords  had  shown  a 
more  temperate  spirit,  and  made  several  alterations  of  a  con 
ciliating  nature.  They  objected  to  extending  the  subscrip 
tion  required  by  the  act  to  school-masters.  But  the  commons 
urged  in  a  conference  the  force  of  education,  which  made  it 
necessary  to  take  care  for  the  youth.  The  upper  house  even 
inserted  a  proviso,  allowing  the  king  to  dispense  with  the 
surplice  and  the  sign  of  the  cross  ;  but  the  commons  reso 
lutely  withstanding  this  and  every  other  alteration,  they  were 
all  given  up.'2  Yet,  next  year,  when  it  was  found  necessary 
to  pass  an  act  for  the  relief  of  those  who  had  been  prevented 
involuntarily  from  subscribing  the  declaration  in  due  time,  a 
clause  was  introduced  declaring  that  the  assent  and  consent 
to  the  book  of  common  prayer  required  by  the  said  act  should 
be  understood  only  as  to  practice  and  obedience,  and  not 
otherwise.  The  duke  of  York  and  twelve  lay  peers  pro 
tested  against  this  clause,  as  destructive  to  the  church  of 
England  as  now  established  ;  and  the  commons  vehemently 
objecting  to  it,  the  partisans  of  moderate  counsels  gave  way 
as  before.3  When  the  day  of  St.  Bartholomew  came,  about 
2000  persons  resigned  their  preferments  rather  than  stain 
their  consciences  by  compliance  —  an  act  to  which  the  more 
liberal  Anglicans,  after  the  bitterness  of  immediate  passions 
had  passed  away,  have  accorded  that  praise  which  is  due  to 
heroic  virtue  in  an  enemy.  It  may  justly  be  said  that  the 
episcopal  clergy  had  set  an  example  of  similar  magnanimity 
in  refusing  to  take  the  covenant.  Yet,  as  that  was  partly  of 
a  political  nature,  and  those  who  were  ejected  for  not  taking 
it  might  hope  to  be  restored  through  the  success  of  the  king's 
arms,  I  do  not  know  that  it  was  altogether  so  eminent  an  act 
of  self-devotion  as  the  presbyterian  clergy  displayed  on  St. 
Bartholomew's  day.  Both  of  them  afford  striking  contrasts 
to  the  pliancy  of  the  English  church  in  the  greater  question 
of  the  preceding  century,  and  bear  witness  to  a  remarkable 
integrity  and  consistency  of  principle.4 

i  Journals,  April  26.      This  may  per-  Journals,  7th  May,  is  altogether  rather 

haps  have  given  rise  to  a  mistake  we  find  curious. 

in  Seal,  624,  that  the  act  of  uniformity  *  Lords'  Journals,  25th  and  27th  July, 

only  passed   by  186  to  180.     There  was  1663.     Ralph,  58. 

no  division  at  all  upon  the  bill  except  •*  Neal,  625-636.     Baxter  told  Burnet, 

that  I  have  mentioned.  as  the  latter  says,  p.  185.  that  not  above 

a  The  report  of  the  conference,  Lords'  300  would  have  resigned  had  the  terms 


326  HOPES   OF   THE  CATHOLICS.  CHAP.  XI. 

No  one  who  has  any  sense  of  honesty  and  plain  dealing 
can  pretend  that  Charles  did  not  violate  the  spirit  of  his  dec 
larations,  both  that  from  Breda  and  that  which  he  published 
in  October,  1GGO.  It  is  idle  to  say  that  those  declarations 
were  subject  to  the  decision  of  parliament,  as  if  the  crown 
had  no  sort  of  influence  in  that  assembly,  nor  even  any 
means  of  making  its  inclinations  known.  He  had  urged 
them  to  confirm  the  act  of  indemnity,  wherein  he  thought  his 
honor  and  security  concerned  ;  was  it  less  easy  to  obtain,  or 
at  least  to  ask  for,  their  concurrence  in  a  comprehension  or 
toleration  of  the  presbyterian  clergy  ?  Yet,  after  mocking 
those  persons  with  pretended  favor,  and  even  offering  bishop 
rics  to  some  of  their  number  by  way  of  purchasing  their  de 
fection,  the  king  made  no  effort  to  mitigate  the  provisions  of 
the  act  of  uniformity;  and  Clarendon  strenuously  supported 
them  through  both  houses  of  parliament.1  This  behavior  in 
the  minister  sprang  from  real  bigotry  and  dislike  of  the  pres- 
byterians  ;  But  Charles  was  influenced  by  a  very  different 
motive,  which  had  become  the  secret  spring  of  all  his  policy. 
This  requires  to  be  fully  explained. 

Charles,  during  his  misfortunes,  had  made  repeated  prom- 

HO  es  of  ises  to  ^ie  P°Pe  an(l  tue  great  catholic  princes  of 
thecath-  relaxing  the  penal  laws  against  his  subjects  of  that 
religion  —  promises  which  he  well  knew  to  be  the 
necessary  condition  of  their  assistance.  And,  though  he 
never  received  any  succor  which  could  demand  the  perform 
ance  of  these  assurances,  his  desire  to  stand  well  with  France 
and  Spain,  as  well  as  a  sense  of  what  was  really  due  to  the 
English  catholics,  would  have  disposed  him  to  grant  every 
indulgence  which  the  temper  of  his  people  should  permit. 

of  the  king's  declaration  been  adhered  2257  names.    Kennet,  however  (Register, 

to.     The  blame,  he  goes  on,  fell  chiefly  807),   notices  great  mistakes  of  Calamy 

on  Sheldon.    But  Clarendon  was  charged  in  respect  only  to  one  diocese,  that  of 

with  entertaining  the  presbyterians  with  Peterborough.      Probably  both    in   this 

good  words,  while  he  was  giving  way  to  collection  and  in  that  of  Walker  on  the 

the  bishops.      See  also  p.  268.      Baxter  other  side,  as  in  all  rnatyrologies  there 

puts  the  number  of  the  deprived  at  1800  are  abundant  errors  ;   but   enough  will 

or  2000.    Life,  384.     And  it  has  generally  remain  to  afford  memorable  examples  of 

been  reckoned  about  2000;  though  Bur-  conscientious  suffering;   and  we  cannot 

net  says  it  has  been  much  controverted,  read  without  indignation   Rennet's   en- 

If  indeed  we  can  rely  on  Calamy 's  ac-  deavors,  in  the  conclusion  of  this  volume, 

count  of  the  ejected  ministers,  abridged  to  extenuate  the  praise  of  the  deprived 

by  Palmer,  under  the  title  of  the  Non-  presbyterians  by  captious  and  unfair  ar- 

conformist's  Memorial,  the  number  must  gunients. 

have  been  full  2400,  including  fellows  of         1  See   Clarendon's   feeble    attempt   to 

colleges,  though  not  in  orders.     Palmer  vindicate  the   king  from  the  charge  of 

says  that  a  manuscript  catalogue  gives  breach  of  faith,  157. 


CHA.  II.  — 1660-73.  THEIR   CONDUCT.  327 

The  laws  were  highly  severe,  in  some  cases  sanguinary ;  they 
were  enacted  in  very  different  times,  from  plausible  motives 
of  distrust,  which  it  would  be  now  both  absurd  and  ungrate 
ful  to  retain.  The  catholics  had  been  the  most  strenuous  of 
the  late  king's  adherents,  the  greatest  sufferers  for  their  loy 
alty.  Out  of  about  five  hundred  gentlemen  who  lost  their 
lives  in  the  royal  cause,  one  third,  it  has  been  said,  were  of 
that  religion.1  Their  estates  had  been  selected  for  confisca 
tion  when  others  had  been  admitted  to  compound.  It  is,  how 
ever,  certain  that  after  the  conclusion  of  the  war,  and  espe 
cially  during  the  usurpation  of  Cromwell,  they  declined  in 
general  to  provoke  a  government  which  showed  a  good  deal 
of  connivance  towards  their  religion,  by  keeping  up  any  con 
nection  with  the  exiled  family.2  They  had,  as  was  surely 
very  natural,  one  paramount  object  in  their  political  conduct, 
the  enjoyment  of  religious  liberty  ;  whatever  debt  of  gratitude 
they  might  have  owed  to  Charles  I.  had  been  amply  paid ; 
ancl  perhaps  they  might  reflect  that  he  never  scrupled,  in  his 
various  negotiations  with  the  parliament,  to  acquiesce  in  any 
prescriptive  measures  suggested  against  popery.  This  appar 
ent  abandonment,  however,  of  the  royal  interests  excited  the 
displeasure  of  Clarendon,  which  was  increased  by  a  tendency 
some  of  the  catholics  showed  to  unite  with  Lambert,  who  was 
understood  to  be  privately  of  their  religion,  and  by  an  in 
trigue  carried  on  in  1659,  by  the  machinations  of  Bucking 
ham  with  some  priests,  to  set  up  the  duke  of  York  for  the 
crown.  But  the  king  retained  no  resentment  of  the  general 
conduct  of  this  party ;  and  was  desirous  to  give  them  a  testi 
mony  of  his  confidence  by  mitigating  the  penal  laws  against 
their  religion.  Some  steps  wrere  taken  towards  this  by  the 
house  of  lords  in  the  session  of  1661  ;  and  there  seems  little 
doubt  that  the  statutes  at  least  inflicting  capital  punishments 
would  have  been  repealed  without  difficulty,  if  the  catholics 
had  not  lost  the  favorable  moment  by  some  disunion  among 
themselves,  which  the  never-ceasing  intrigues  of  the  Jesuits 
contrived  to  produce.3 

i  A  list  of  these,  published  in  1660,  post.  We  find  a  letter  from  him  to  Crom- 

conttiins  more  than  170  names.  Neal,  well  in  1656  (Thurloe,  iv.  591),  with  great 

590.  protestations  of  duty. 

a  Sir  Kenelm  Digby  was  supposed  to  »  See  Lords' Journals,  June  and  July, 

be  deep  in  a  scheme  that  the  catholics,  in  1661,  or  extracts  from  them  in  Rennet's 

1649,  should  support  the  commonwealth  Register,  469,  &c.,  620,  &c.,  and  798, 

with  all  their  power,  in  return  for  liberty  where  are  several  other  particulars  wor- 

of  religion.  Carte's  Letters,  i.  216,  et  thy  of  notice.  Clarendon,  143,  explains 


328  KING'S   BIAS   TO   ROMAXISTS.  CHAP.  XI. 

There  can  be  no  sort  of  doubt  that  the  king's  natural  facil- 
Biasofthe  ity,  and  exemption  from  all  prejudice  in  favor  of 
king  towards  established  laws,  would  have  led  him  to  afford 
every  indulgence  that  could  be  demanded  to  his 
catholic  subjects,  many  of  whom  were  his  companions  or  his 
counsellors,  without  any  propensity  towards  their  religion. 
But  it  is  morally  certain  that  during  the  period  of  his  banish 
ment  he  had  imbibed,  as  deeply  and  seriously  as  the  charac 
ter  of  his  mind  would  permit,  a  persuasion  that,  if  any  scheme 
of  Christianity  were  true,  it  could  only  be  found  in  the  bosom 
of  an  infallible  church  ;  though  he  was  never  reconciled,  ac 
cording  to  the  formal  profession  which  she  exacts,  till  the  List 
hours  of  his  life.  The  secret,  however,  of  his  inclinations, 
though  disguised  to  the  world  by  the  appearance,  and  prob 
ably  sometimes  more  than  the  appearance,  of  carelessness 
and  infidelity,  could  not  be  wholly  concealed  from  his  court. 
It  appears  the  most  natural  mode  of  accounting  for  the  sud 
den  conversion  of  the  earl  of  Bristol  to  popery,  which  is 
generally  agreed  to  have  been  insincere.  An  ambitious  in 
triguer,  holding  the  post  of  secretary  of  state,  would  not  have 
ventured  such  a  step  without  some  grounds  of  confidence  in 
his  master's  wishes;  though  his  characteristic  precipitancy 
hurried  him  forward  to  destroy  his  own  hopes.  Nor  are  there 
wanting  proofs  that  the  protestantism  of  both  the  brothers 
was  greatly  suspected  in  England  before  the  Restoration.1 
These  suspicions  acquired  strength  after  the  king's  return, 
through  his  manifest  intention  not  to  marry  a  protestant ;  and 
still  more  through  the  presumptuous  demeanor  of  the  oppo- 

the  failure  of  this  attempt  at  a  partial  ration,  so  as  to  alarm  his  emissaries  : 
toleration  (  for  it  was  only  meant  as  to  "  Your  master,"  Mordaunt  writes  to  Or- 
the  exercise  of  religious  rites  in  private  mond.  Nov.  10,  1659,  "  is  utterly  ruined 
houses)  by  the  persevering  opposition  of  as  to  his  interest  here  in  whatever  party, 
the  Jesuits  to  the  oath  of  allegiance,  to  if  this  be  true/'  Carte's  Letters,  ii.  264, 
which  the  lay  catholics,  and  generally  the  and  Clar.  State  Papers,  iii.  602.  But  an. 
secular  priests,  had  long  ceased  to  make  anecdote  related  in  Carte's  Life  of  Or- 
objection.  The  house  had  voted  that  the  mond,  ii.  255,  and  Harris's  Lives,  v.  54, 
indulgence  should  not  extend  to  Jesuits,  which  has  obtained  some  credit,  proves, 
and  that  they  would  not  alter  the  oaths  if  true,  that  he  had  embraced  the  Koinan 
of  allegiance  or  supremacy.  The  Jesu-  catholic  religion  as  early  as  1659.  so  as 
its  complained  of  the  distinction  taken  even  to  attend  mass.  This  cannot  be 
against  them  ;  and  asserted,  in  a  printed  reckoned  out  of  question  ;  but  the  ten- 
tract  (Kennet,  ubi  supra.),  that  since  1616  dency  of  the  king's  mind  before  his  re- 
they  had  been  inhibited  by  their  supe-  turn  to  England  is  to  be  inferred  from 
riors  from  maintaining  the  pope's  right  all  his  behavior.  Kennet  (Complete  Hist, 
to  depose  sovereigns.  See  also  Butler's  of  England,  iii.  237)  plainly  insinuates 
Mem.  of  Catholics,  ii.  27.  iv.  142;  and  that  the  project  for  restoring  popery  be- 
Burnet,  i.  194.  gau  at  the  treaty  of  the  Pyrenees  ;  and 

1  The  suspicions  against  Charles  were  see  his  Register,  p.  852. 
very  strong  in  England  before  the  resto- 


CIIA.  II.  —  1G60-73.       HIS   INDIRECT   POLICY.  329 

site  party,  which  seemed  to  indicate  some  surer  grounds  of 
confidence  than  were  yet  manifest.  The  new  parliament  in 
its  first  session  had  made  it  penal  to  say  that  the  king  was  a 
papist  or  popishly  affected  ;  whence  the  prevalence  of  that 
scandal  may  be  inferred.1 

Charles    had    no  assistance  to   expect,   in   his   scheme  of 
granting  a  full  toleration  to  the  Roman  faith,  from 
his    chief  adviser    Clarendon.     A    repeal  of   the  ciTi-mfdon7 
sanguinary  laws,  a  reasonable  connivance,  perhaps  aml  the 

J  ,.  .  A  i       parliament. 

in  some  cases  a  dispensation  —  to  these  favors  he 
would  have  acceded.  But  in  his  creed  of  policy  the  legal 
allowance  of  any  but  the  established  religion  was  inconsis 
tent  with  public  order,  and  with  the  king's  ecclesiastical 
prerogative.  This  was  also  a  fixed  principle  with  the  par 
liament,  whose  implacable  resentment  towards  the  secretaries 
had  not  inclined  them  to  abate  in  the  least  of  their  abhor 
rence  and  apprehension  of  popery.  The  church  of  Eng 
land,  distinctly  and  exclusively,  was  their  rallying-point ;  the 
crown  itself  stood  only  second  in  their  affections.  The  king, 
therefore,  had  recourse  to  a  more  subtle  and  indirect  policy. 
If  the  terms  of  conformity  had  been  so  far  relaxed  as  to 
suffer  the  continuance  of  the  presbyterian  clergy  in  their 
benefices,  there  was  every  reason  to  expect,  from  their  known 
disposition,  a  determined  hostility  to  all  approaches  towards 
popery,  and  even  to  its  toleration.  It  was  therefore  the 
policy  of  those  who  had  the  interests  of  that  cause  at  heart 
to  permit  no  deviation  from  the  act  of  uniformity,  to  resist  all 
endeavors  at  a  comprehension  of  dissenters  within  the  pale 
of  the  church,  and  to  make  them  look  up  to  the  king  for 
indulgence  in  their  separate  way  of  worship.  They  were  to 
be  taught  that,  amenable  to  the  same  laws  as  the  Romanists, 
exposed  to  the  oppression  of  the  same  enemies,  they  must  act 
in  concert  for  a  common  benefit.2  The  presbyterian  minis 
ters,  disheartened  at  the  violence  of  the  parliament,  had 
recourse  to  Charles,  whose  affability  and  fair  promises  they 
were  loath  to  distrust,  and  implored  his  dispensation  for  their 
non-conformity.  The  king,  naturally  irresolute,  and  doubtless 
sensible  that  he  had  made  a  bad  return  to  those  who  had 
contributed  so  much  towards  his  restoration,  was  induced,  at 
the  strong  solicitation  of  lord  Manchester,  to  promise  that  he 
would  issue  a  declaration  suspending  the  execution  of  the 

i  13  Car.  2,  c.  1.  2  Burnet,  i.  179. 


330        DECLARATION  FOR  INDULGENCE.     CHAP.  XL 

statute  for  three  months.  Clarendon,  though  he  had  been 
averse  to  some  of  the  rigorous  clauses  inserted  in  the  act  of 
uniformity,  was  of  opinion  that,  once  passed,  it  ought  to  be 
enforced  without  any  connivance  ;  and  told  the  king,  likewise, 
that  it  was  not  in  his  power  to  preserve  those  who  did  not 
comply  with  it  from  deprivation.  Yet,  as  the  king's  word 
had  been  given,  he  advised  him  rather  to  issue  such  a  decla 
ration  than  to  break  his  promise.  But,  the  bishops  vehe 
mently  remonstrating  against  it,  and  intimating  that  they 
would  not  be  parties  to  a  violation  of  the  law  by  refusing  to 
institute  a  clerk  presented  by  the  patron  on  an  avoidance  for 
want  of  conformity  in  the  incumbent,  the  king  gave  way,  and 
resolved  to  make  no  kind  of  concession.  It  is  remarkable 
that  the  noble  historian  does  not  seem  struck  at  the  enormous 
and  unconstitutional  prerogative  which  a  proclamation  sus 
pending  the  statute  would  have  assumed.1 

Instead  of  this  very  objectionable  measure  the  king  adopted 
one  less  arbitrary,  and  more  consonant  to  his  own 

Declaration  %_7  ..        -.      ,  .  „ 

for  indui-  secret  policy.  He  published  a  declaration  in  favor 
of  liberty  of  conscience,  for  which  no  provision 
had  been  made,  so  as  to  redeem  the  promises  he  had  held 
forth  at  his  accession.  Adverting  to  these,  he  declared  that, 
"  as  in  the  first  place  he  had  been  zealous  to  settle  the  uni 
formity  of  the  church  of  England  in  discipline,  ceremony, 
and  government,  and  should  ever  constantly  maintain  it,  so, 
as  for  what  concerns  the  penalties  upon  those  who,  living 
peaceably,  do  not  conform  themselves  thereto,  he  should 
make  it  his  special  care,  so  far  as  in  him  lay  without  invading 
the  freedom  of  parliament,  to  incline  their  wisdom  next 
approaching  sessions  to  concur  with  him  in  making  some 
such  act  for  that  purpose  as  may  enable  him  to  exercise  with 
a  more  universal  satisfaction  that  power  of  dispensing  which 
he  conceived  to  be  inherent  in  him."  2 

The  aim  of  this  declaration  was  to  obtain  from  parliament 
a  mitigation  at  least  of  all  penal  statutes  in  matters  of  religion, 
but  more  to  serve  the  interests  of  catholic  than  of  protestant 
non-conformity.3  Except,  however,  the  allusion  to  the  dis- 

1  Life  of  Clarendon,  159.     He  intimates  3  Baxter  intimates,  429,  that  some  dis- 
that  this  begot  a  coldness  in  the  bishops  agreement  arose  between  the  presbyte- 
toward  himself,  which  was  never  fully  re-  rians  and  independents  as  to  the  tolera- 
moved.     Yet  he  had  no  reason  to  com-  tion  of  popery,  or  rather,  as  he  pnts  it, 
plain    of  them    on   his  trial.     See,   too,  as  to  the  active  concurrence  of  the  prot- 
Pepys's  Diary.  Sept.  3,  1662.  estant  dissenters  in  accepting  such  a  tol- 

2  Parl.  Hist.  257.  erationas  should  include  popery.  Thelat- 


CHA.  II.— 1060-73.      OPPOSED   BY   COMMONS.  331 

pensing  power,  which  yet  is  very  moderately  alleged,  there 
was  nothing  in  it,  according  to  our  present  opinions,  that 
should  have  created  offence.  But  the  commons,  Ob-ected 
on  their  meeting  in  February,  1663,  presented  an  to  by  the 
address  denying  that  any  obligation  lay  on  the  commons- 
king  by  virtue  of  his  declaration  from  Breda,  which  must  be 
understood  to  depend  on  the  advice  of  parliament,  and 
slightly  intimating  that  he  possessed  no  such  dispensing  pre 
rogative  as  was  suggested.  They  strongly  objected  to  the 
whole  scheme  of  indulgence,  as  the  means  of  increasing 
sectaries,  and  rather  likely  to  occasion  disturbance  than  to 
promote  peace.1  They  remonstrated,  in  another  address, 
against  the  release  of  Calamy,  an  eminent  dissenter,  who, 
having  been  imprisoned  for  transgressing  the  act  of  uniform 
ity,  was  irregularly  set  at  liberty  by  the  king's  personal 
order.2  The  king,  undeceived  as  to  the  disposition  of  this 
loyal  assembly  to  concur  in  his  projects  of  religious  liberty, 
was  driven  to  more  tedious  and  indirect  courses  in  order  to 
compass  his  end.  He  had  the  mortification  of  finding  that 
the  house  of  commons  had  imbibed,  partly  perhaps  in  con 
sequence  of  this  declaration,  that  jealous  apprehension  of 
popery  which  had  caused  so  much  of  his  father's  ill-fortune. 
On  this  topic  the  watchfulness  of  an  English  parliament 
could  never  be  long  at  rest.  The  notorious  insolence  of  the 
Romish  priests,  who,  proud  of  the  court's  favor,  disdained  to 
respect  the  laws  enough  to  disguise  themselves,  provoked  an 
address  to  the  king  that  they  might  be  sent  out  of  the  king 
dom  ;  and  bills  were  brought  in  to  prevent  the  further  growth 
of  popery.8 

ter,  conformably  to  their  general  princi-  from  the  king,  and  that  the  opposition  to 

pies,  were  favorable  to  it;  but  the  former  it  in  the  house  was  chiefly  made  by  the 

would   not   make  themselves    parties   to  friends  of  Clarendon.      The   latter  tells 

any  relaxation  of  the  penal  laws  against  us  in  his  Life,  189,  that  the  king  was  dis- 

the  church  of  Rome,   leaving  the  king  pleased  at  the  insolence   of  the  Romish 

to  act  as   he  thought  fit.     By  this  stiff-  party,  and  gave  the  judges  general  orders 

ness  it  is  very  probable  that   they  pro-  to  convict  recusants.     The  minister  and 

voked  a  good  deal  of  persecution  from  historian  either  was  or  pretended  to  be 

the  court,  which  they  might  have  avoid-  his  masters   dupe;  and,   if  he  had  any 

ed  by  falling  into  its  views  of  a  general  suspicions  of  what  was  meant  as  to  relig- 

indulgence.  ion  (as  he  must  surely  have  had),  is  far 

1  Parl.   Hist.   260.      An  adjournment  too  loyal  to  hint  them.     Yet  the  one  cir- 
had  been  moved  and  lost   by  101  to  119.  cumstance  he  mentions  soon  after,  that 
Journals,  25th  Feb.  the  countess  of  Castlemaine  suddenly  de- 

2  19  Feb.     Baxter,  p.  429.  clared  herself  a  catholic,  was  enough  to 
s  Journals,  17th  and  28th  March,  1663.     open  his  eyes  and  those  of  the  world. 

Parl.  Hist.  264.  Burnet,  274,  says  the  The  Romish  partisans  assumed  the  tone 
declaration  of  indulgence  was  usually  as-  of  high  loyalty,  as  exclusively  charac 
cribed  to  Bristol,  but  in  fact  proceeded  teristic  of  their  religion;  but  affected. 


332  ACT  AGAIXST   CONVENTICLES.  CHAP.  XL 

Meanwhile,  the  same  remedy,  so  infallible  in  the  eyes  of 
legislators,  was  not  forgotten  to  be  applied  to  the  opposite 
disease  of  protestant  dissent.  Some  had  believed,  of  whom 
Clarendon  seems  to  have  been,  that,  all  scruples  of  tender 
conscience  in  the  presbyterian  clergy  being  faction  and  hy 
pocrisy,  they  would  submit  very  quietly  to  the  law,  when 
they  found  all  their  clamor  unavailing  to  obtain  a  dispensa 
tion  from  it.  The  resignation  of  2000  beneficed  ministers  at 
once,  instead  of  extorting  praise,  rather  inflamed  the  resent 
ment  of  their  bigoted  enemies  ;  especially  when  they  per 
ceived  that  a  public  and  perpetual  toleration  of  separate 
worship  was  favored  by  part  of  the  court.  Rumors  of  con 
spiracy  and  insurrection,  sometimes  false,  but  gaining  credit 
from  the  notorious  discontent  both  of  the  old  commonwealth's 
party,  and  of  many  who  had  never  been  on  that  side,  were 
sedulously  propagated,  in  order  to  keep  up  the  animosity  of 
Act  against  parliament  against  the  ejected  clergy  ; l  and  these 
conventicles.  are  recited  as  the  pretext  of  an  act  passed  in 
1G64,  for  suppressing  seditious  conventicles  (the  epithet 
being  in  this  place  wantonly  and  unjustly  insulting),  which 
inflicted  on  all  persons  above  the  age  of  sixteen,  present  at 
any  religious  meeting  in  other  manner  than  is  allowed  by 
the  practice  of  the  church  of  England,  where  five  or  more 
persons  besides  the  household  should  be  present,  a  penalty 
of  three  months'  imprisonment  for  the  first  offence,  of  six 
for  the  second,  and  of  seven  years'  transportation  for  the 
third,  on  conviction  before  a  single  justice  of  peace.2  This 


at  this  time,  to  use  great  civility  towards  the  duke  of  Ormond,  where  he  says  — 

the  church  of  England.    A  book,  entitled  "  The  country  was  in  greater  readiness  to 

Philanax  Anglicus,  published  under  the  prevent  the  disorders  than  perhaps  were 

name  of  Bellamy,  the  second  edition  of  to  be  wished ;  but  it  being   the  effect  of 

which  is  in  1663.  after  a  most  flattering  their  own  care,  rather  than  his  majesty ?s 

dedication  to  Sheldon,  launches  into  viru-  commands,  it  is  the  less  to  be  censured." 

lent  abuse  of  the  presbyterians  and  of  the  Clarendon,  218,  speaks  of  this  as  an  im- 

reformation  in   general,  as  founded  on  portant  and  extensive  conspiracy  ;  and 

principles   adverse  to   monarchy.     This,  the  king  dwelt  on  it  in  his  next  speech  to 

indeed,  was   common  with  the  ultra  or  the  parliament.     Parl.  Hist.  289. 
high-church  party  ;  but  the  work  in  ques-        2  16  Car.  II.  c.  4.     A  similar  bill  had 

tion,  though  it  purports   to  be  written  passed  the  commons  in  July,  1663,  but 

by   a  clergyman,  is   manifestly  a  shaft  hung  some  time  in  the  upper  house,  and 

from  the  concealed  bow  of  the  Roman  was  much  debated;    the  commons    sent 

Apollo.  up  a  message  (an    irregular  practice  of 

l  See  proofs  of  this  in  Ralph.  53.     Ra-  those  times)  to   request   their   lordships 

pin-  p.  78.     There  was  in  1663  a  trifling  would  expedite  this  and  some  other  bills, 

insurrection    in    Yorkshire,    which    the  The  king  seems  to  have  been  displeased 

government  wished   to  have  been  more  at  this  delay ;  for  he  told  them  at  their 

serious,  so  as  to  afford  a  better  pretext  prorogation  that   he  had  expected  some 

for  strong  measures  ;  as  may  be  collected  bills  against  conventicles  and  distempers 

from  a  passage  in  a  letter  of  Bennet  to  in   religion,  as   well   as    the   growth  of 


CHA.  II.  — 1660-73.      ANOTHER  RESTRICTIVE  ACT.  333 

act,  says  Clarendon,  if  it  had  been  vigorously  executed,  would 
no  doubt  have  produced  a  thorough  reformation.1  Such  is 
ever  the  language  of  the  supporters  of  tyranny  ;  when  op 
pression  does  not  succeed,  it  is  because  there  has  been  too 
little  of  it.  But  those  who  suffered  under  this  statute  report 
very  differently  as  to  its  vigorous  execution.  The  jails  were 
filled,  not  only  with  ministers  who  had  borne  the  brunt  of 
former  persecutions,  but  with  the  laity  who  attended  them  ; 
and  the  hardship  was  the  more  grievous,  that,  the  act  being 
ambiguously  worded,  its  construction  was  left  to  a  single 
magistrate,  generally  very  adverse  to  the  accused. 

It  is  the  natural  consequence  of  restrictive  laws  to  aggra 
vate  the  disaffection  which  has  served  as  their  Another  of 
pretext ;  and  thus  to  create  a  necessity  for  a  legis-  the  same 
lature  that  will  not  retrace  its  steps  to  pass  still  kl 
onward  in  the  course  of  severity.  In  the  next  session  ac 
cordingly,  held  at  Oxford  in  1G65,  on  account  of  the  plague 
that  ravaged  the  capital,  we  find  a  new  and  more  inevitable 
blow  aimed  at  the  fallen  church  of  Calvin.  It  was  enacted 
that  all  persons  in  holy  orders,  who  had  not  subscribed  the 
act  of  uniformity,  should  swear  that  it  is  not  lawful,  upon 
any  pretence  whatsoever,  to  take  arms  against  the  king ;  and 
that  they  did  abhor  that  traitorous  position  of  taking  arms 
by  his  authority  against  his  person,  or  against  those  that  are 
commissioned  by  him,  and  would  not  at  any  time  endeavor 
any  alteration  of  government  in  church  or  state.  Those 
who  refused  this  oath  were  not  only  made  incapable  of 
teaching  in  schools,  but  prohibited  from  coming  within  five 
miles  of  any  city,  corporate  town,  or  borough  sending  mem 
bers  to  parliament.2 

This  persecuting  statute  did  not  pass  without  the  opposi 
tion  of  the  earl  of  Southampton,  lord   treasurer,  Remarks 
and  other  peers.     But  archbishop   Sheldon,  and  on  them- 
several  bishops,  strongly  supported  the  bill,  which  had  un 
doubtedly   the   sanction   also   of  Clarendon's  authority.3     In 
the  commons  I  do  not  find  that  any  division  took  place ;  but 
an  unsuccessful  attempt  was  made  to  insert  the  word  "  le 
gally  "  before  commissioned ;  the  lawyers,  however,  declared 

popery,  and  should  himself  present  some  principles  of  the  English   constitution  : 

at  their  next  meeting.     Parl.  Hist.  288.  285. 

Burnet  observes,  that  to  empower  a  jus-  *  P.  221.             2  17  C;ir.  2,  c.  2. 

tice  of  peace  to  convict  without  a  jury  3  Burnet.   Baxter,  part  iii.  p.  2.    Neal, 

was    thought    a    great    breach    on    the  p.  652. 


334  MOTIVES   OF   TOLERATION.  CHAP.  XL 

that  this  word  must  be  understood.1  Some  of  the  non-eon- 
forming  clergy  took  the  oath  upon  this  construction.  But 
the  far  greater  number  refused.  Even  if  they  could  have 
borne  the  solemn  assertion  of  the  principles  of  passive  obe 
dience  in  all  possible  cases,  their  scrupulous  consciences 
revolted  from  a  pledge  to  endeavor  at  no  kind  of  alteration 
in  church  and  state ;  an  engagement,  in  its  extended  sense, 
irreconcilable  with  their  own  principles  in  religion,  and  with 
the  civil  duties  of  Englishmen.  Yet  to  quit  the  town  where 
they  had  long  been  connected,  and  where  alone  they  had 
friends  and  disciples,  for  a  residence  in  country  villages,  was 
an  exclusion  from  the  ordinary  means  of  subsistence.  The 
church  of  England  had  doubtless  her  provocations  ;  but  she 
made  the  retaliation  much  more  than  commensurate  to  the 
injury.  No  severity,  comparable  to  this  cold-blooded  perse 
cution,  had  been  inflicted  by  the  late  powers,  even  in  the 
ferment  and  fury  of  a  civil  war.  Encouraged  by  this  easy 
triumph,  the  violent  party  in  the  house  of  commons  thought 
it  a  good  opportunity  to  give  the  same  test  a  more  sweeping 
application.  A  bill  was  brought  in  imposing  this  oath  upon 
the  whole  nation  ;  that  is,  I  presume  (for  I  do  not  know  that 
its  precise  nature  is  anywhere  explained),  on  all  persons  in 
any  public  or  municipal  trust.  This,  however,  was  lost  on  a 
division  by  a  small  majority.2 

It  has  been  remarked  that  there  is  no  other  instance  in 
history,  where  men  have  suffered  persecution  on  account  of 
differences  which  were  admitted  by  those  who  inflicted  it  to 
be  of  such  small  moment.  But,  supposing  this  to  be  true, 
it  only  proves,  what  may  perhaps  be  alleged  as  a  sort  of 
extenuation  of  these  severe  laws  against  non-conformists,  that 
they  were  merely  political,  and  did  not  spring  from  any  theo 
logical  bigotry.  Sheldon,  indeed,  their  great  promoter,  was 
so  free  from  an  intolerant  zeal  that  he  is  represented  as  a 
man  who  considered  religion  chiefly  as  an  engine  of  policy. 
The  principles  of  religious  toleration  had  already  gained  con 
siderable  ground  over  mere  bigotry  ;  but  were  still  obnoxious 
to  the  arbitrary  temper  of  some  politicians,  and  wanted  per- 

1  Burnet.     Baxter.  by  three  votes,  and  mentions  the  persons. 

2  Mr.  Locke,  in  the    "  Letter    from  a  But  the  numbers  in  the  Journals,  Octo- 
Person  of  Quality  to  his  Friend   in  the  ber  27,   1665,   appear    to   be   57    to    51. 
Country,"  printed  in  1675  (see  it  in  his  Probably   he  meant  that  those  persons 
Works,  or  in  Parliamentary  History,  vol.  might  have  been  expected   to    vote    the 
iv.   Appendix,  No.  5),  says   it  was  lost  other  way. 


CHA.  II.  — 1600-73.      DISSATISFACTION   INCREASES.  335 

hups  experimental  proof  of  their  safety  to  recommend  them 
to  the  caution  of  others.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  all 
laws  against  dissent  and  separation  from  an  established 
church,  those  even  of  the  inquisition,  have  proceeded  in  a 
greater  or  less  degree  from  political  motives  ;  and  these  ap 
pear  to  me  far  less  odious  than  the  disinterested  rancor  of 
superstition.  The  latter  is  very  common  among  the  popu 
lace,  and  sometimes  among  the  clergy.  Thus  the  presby- 
terians  exclaimed  against  the  toleration  of  popery,  not  as 
dangerous  to  the  protestant  establishment,  but  as  a  sinful 
compromise  with  idolatry  ;  language  which,  after  the  first 
heat  of  the  Reformation  had  abated,  was  never  so  current 
in  the  Anglican  church.1  In  the  case  of  these  statutes 
against  non-conformists  under  Charles  II.,  revenge  and  fear 
seem  to  have  been  the  unmixed  passions  that  excited  the 
church  party  against  those  whose  former  superiority  they 
remembered,  and  whose  disaffection  and  hostility  it  was  im 
possible  to  doubt.2 

A  joy  so  excessive  and  indiscriminating  had  accompanied 
the  king's  restoration,  that  no  prudence  or  virtue 
in  his  government  could  have  averted  that  reac-  faction 
tion  of  popular  sentiment  which  inevitably  follows  ln 
the  disappointment  of  unreasonable  hope.     Those  who  lay 
their   account   upon  blessings   which   no   course   of  political 
administration  can  bestow,  live,  according  to  the  poet's  com- 

1  A  pamphlet,  with  Baxter's  name  sub-  tion  to  the   degree,  quality,  and  ability 
scribed,  called    Fair    Warning,  or    XXV  of  the  delinquent;    that  so  the  penalty 
Reasons   against    Toleration   and  Tndul-  may  be  of  force  sufficient  to  conquer  the 
gence  of  Popery.  1(563,  is  a  pleasant  speci-  obstinacy  of  the  non-conformists.''    Wil- 
men    of    this    argiime.ntum    ab    inferno  kins's    Concilia,    iv.    580.     Letters   from 
"  Being  there  is  but  one  safe  way  to  sal-  Sheldon  to  the  commissary  of  the  diocese 
vation,  do  you  think  that  the  protestant  of  Canterbury,  in  1669  and  1670,  occur 
way  is  that  way,  or  is  it  not?     If  it  be  in    the    same    collection,    pp.   588,   589, 
not,  why  do    you  live  in  it  ?     If  it    be,  directing   him  to  inquire  about  couven- 
how  can  you  find  in  your  heart  to  give  tides ;  and  if  they  cannot  be  restrained 
your  subjects  liberty  to  go  another  way  ?  by  ecclesiastical    authority,  to  apply  to 
Can  you,  iu  your  conscience,  give  them  the  next  justice  of  the  peace  in  order  to 
leave  to  go  on  in  that  course  in  which,  in  put  them  down.    A  proclamation  appears 
your  conscience,  you  think  you  could  not  also  from  the  king,  enjoining  magistrates 
be  saved?''     Baxter,  however,  does  not  to  do  this.    In  1673  the  archbishop  writes 
mention  this  little  book  in  his  Life  ;  nor  a  circular   to    his   suffragans,    directing 
does  he  there  speak  violently  about  the  them    to   proceed   against    such  as  keep 
toleration  of  Romanists.  schools  without  license.     P.  593. 

2  The  clergy  had  petitioned  the  house         See   in  the  Somers  Tracts,  vii.    586,  a 
of  commons  in  1664.  inter    alia,  "  That  •'  true  and   faithful   narrative  ":    of  the 
for  the  better  observation  of  the  Lord's  severities  practised  against  non-conforin- 
day,  and  for  the  promoting  of  conformity,  ists  about  this  time.    Baxter's  Life  is  also 
you   would   be    pleased   to   advance   the  full  of  proofs   of  persecution ;    but  the 
pecuniary  mulct  of  twelve  pence  for  each  most  complete  register  is  in  Calamy's  ac- 
abseuce  from  divine  service,  in  propor-  count  of  the  ejected  clergy. 


336          INCREASE  OF  DISCONTENT.      CHAP.  XL 

parison,  like  the  sick  man,  perpetually  changing  posture  in 
search  of  the  rest  which  nature  denies  ;  the  dupes  of  suc 
cessive  revolutions,  sanguine  as  children  in  all  the  novelties 
of  politics,  a  new  constitution,  a  new  sovereign,  a  new  min 
ister,  and  as  angry  with  the  playthings  when  they  fall  short 
of  their  desires.  What  then  was  the  discontent  that  must 
have  ensued  upon  the  restoration  of  Charles  II.  ?  The  neg 
lected  cavalier,  the  persecuted  presbyterian,  the  disbanded 
officer,  had  each  his  grievance  ;  and  felt  that  he  was  either 
in  a  worse  situation  than  he  had  formerly  been,  or  at  least 
than  he  had  expected  to  be.  Though  there  were  not  the 
violent  acts  of  military  power  which  had  struck  every  man's 
eyes  under  Cromwell,  it  cannot  be  said  that  personal  liberty 
was  secure,  or  that  the  magistrates  had  not  considerable 
power  of  oppression,  and  that  pretty  unsparingly  exercised 
towards  those  suspected  of  disaffection.  The  religious  per 
secution  was  not  only  far  more  severe  than  it  was  ever 
during  the  commonwealth,  but  perhaps  more  extensively  felt 
than  under  Charles  I.  Though  the  monthly  assessments  for 
the  support  of  the  army  ceased  soon  after  the  restoration,  sev 
eral  large  grants  were  made  by  parliament,  especially  during 
the  Dutch  war;  and  it  appears  that  in  the  first  seven  years 
of  Charles  II.  the  nation  paid  a  far  greater  sum  in  taxes 
than  in  any  preceding  period  of  the  same  duration.1  If  then 
the  people  compared  the  national  fruits  of  their  expenditure, 
what  a  contrast  they  found,  how  deplorable  a  falling  off  in 
public  honor  and  dignity  since  the  days  of  the  magnanimous 
usurper !  '2  They  saw  with  indignation  that  Dunkirk,  ac 
quired  by  Cromwell,  had  been  chaffered  away  by  Charles 
(a  transaction  justifiable  perhaps  on  the  mere  balance  of 
profit  and  loss,  but  certainly  derogatory  to  the  pride  of  a 
great  nation)  ;  that  a  war,  needlessly  commenced,  had  been 
carried  on  with  much  display  of  bravery  in  our  seamen  and 
their  commanders,  but  no  sort  of  good  conduct  in  the  gov 
ernment  ;  and  that  a  petty  northern  potentate,  who  would 

i  [Bishop  Parker,  certainly  no  enemy  us,  in  raising  money  :  "  the  nation's  ex- 

to  the  administration  of  Charles  II.,  owns  treme   necessity   makes    us    exceedingly 

that  nothing  did  the  king  so  much  harm  tender  whereupon  to  fasten   our  resolu- 

as  the  immense  grant   of  2.500,000*.  in  tions.';   Marvell's  Letters  (in  his  Works), 

1674,  to  be  levied  in  three  years  :    from  Nov.  6.  — 1845.] 

which    time  he  thought  that  he  should  2    Pepys    observes,    12th    July,    1667, 

never  want  money,  and  put  no  restraint  "  how  everybody  now-a-days  reflect  upon 

on  his  expenses.     Hist,  of  his  own  Time,  Oliver  and    commend    him,  what    brave 

p.    245.      In   the   session   of  1666  great  things  he  did,  and  made  all  the  neighbor 

difficulties  were   found,  as  Marvell   tells  princes  fear  him." 


CHA.  IL— 1600-73.       KING'S   PRIVATE   LIFE.  337 

have  trembled  at  the  name  of  the  commonwealth,  had  broken 
his  faith  towards  us  out  of  mere  contempt  of  our  ineffi 
ciency.1 

These  discontents  were  heightened  by  the  private  conduct 
of  Charles,  if  the  life  of  a  king  can  in  any  sense  private  life 
be  private,  by  a  dissoluteness  and  contempt  of  °f  the  king. 
moral  opinion,  which  a  nation,  still  in  the  main  grave  and 
religious,  could  not  endure.  The  austere  character  of  the 
last  king  had  repressed  to  a  considerable  degree  the  common 
vices  of  a  court  which  had  gone  to  a  scandalous  excess  un 
der  James.  But  the  cavaliers  in  general  affected  a  profli 
gacy  of  manners,  as  their  distinction  from  the  fanatical  party, 
which  gained  ground  among  those  who  followed  the  king's 
fortunes  in  exile,  and  became  more  flagrant  after  the  restora 
tion.2  Anecdotes  of  court  excesses,  which  required  not  the 
aid  of  exaggeration,  were  in  daily  circulation  through  the 
coffee-houses  ;  those  who  cared  least  about  the  vice  not  fail 
ing  to  inveigh  against  the  scandal.  It  is  in  the  nature  of  a 
limited  monarchy  that  men  should  censure  very  freely  the 
private  lives  of  their  princes,  as  being  more  exempt  from 
that  immoral  servility  which  blinds  itself  to  the  distinctions 
of  right  and  wrong  in  elevated  rank.  And  as  a  voluptuous 
court  will  always  appear  prodigal,  because  all  expense  in  vice 
is  needless,  they  had  the  mortification  of  believing  that  the 
public  revenues  were  wasted  on  the  vilest  associates  of  the 
king's  debauchery.  We  are,  however,  much  indebted  to  the 
memory  of  Barbara  duchess  of  Cleveland,  Louisa  duchess 
of  Portsmouth,  and  Mrs.  Eleanor  Gwyn.  We  owe  a  tribute 

l  [Clarendon,  while  he  admits  these  Introduction,  p.  73.  On  the  other  hand, 
discontents,  and  complaints  of  the  decay  sir  Josiah  Child  asserts  that  there  were 
of  trade,  asserts  them  to  be  unfounded,  more  men  on  change  worth  10,000^.  iu 
No  estate  could  be  put  up  to  sale  any-  1680  than  there  were  in  1660  worth  1000/., 
when;  but  a  purchaser  was  found  for  it :  and  that  a  hundred  coaches  were  kept  for 
vol.  ii.  p.  364.  The  main  question,  how-  one  formerly.  Lands  yielded  twenty 
ever,  is  at  what  rate  lie  would  purchase,  years'  purchase  which,  when  he  was 
Rents,  he  owns,  had  suddenly  fallen  25  young,  were  not  worth  above  eight  or 
per  cent.,  which  caused  a  clamor  against  ten.  See  Macpherson's  Annals  of  Corn- 
taxes,  presumed  to  be  the  cause  of  it.  merce,  ad  A.D.  1660. — 1845.] 
But  the  truth  is  that  wheat,  which  had  2  []jfe  of  Clarendon,  p.  34.  Perhaps 
been  at  a  very  high  price  fora  few  years  he  lays  too  much  the  blame  of  this  on 
just  before  and  after  the  restoration,  fell  the  sectaries;  yet  we  may  suspect  that 
about  1663  ;  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  enthusiastic  and  antinomian  conceits 
the  reign  of  Charles  II.  was  not  favor-  of  these  men  had  relaxed  the  old  bonds 
able  to  the  landed  interest.  Lady  Sunder-  of  morality,  and  paved  the  way  for  the 
land  tells  us,  in  a  letter  of  1681.  that  more  glaring  licentiousness  of  the  resto- 
'•  the  manor  of  Worme-Leighton.  which,  ration.  See,  too,  Pep-ys's  Diary,  Aug.  31, 
when  1  was  married  [1662],  was  let  for  1660.  for  the  rapid  increase  of  dissolute- 
3200/.,  is  now  let  for  2300L"  Sidney's  ness  about  the  court.  —  1845.] 
Diary,  edited  by  Blencowe,  1843,  vol.  i. 
"VOL.  n.  22 


338  OPPOSITION  IN  PARLIAMENT.  CHAP.  XL 

of  gratitude  to  tlie  Mays,  the  Killigrews,  the  Chiffinches,  and 
the  Grammonts.  They  played  a  serviceable  part  in  ridding 
the  kingdom  of  its  besotted  loyalty.  They  saved  our  fore 
fathers  from  the  star-chamber  and  the  high-commission  court; 
they  labored  in  their  vocation  against  standing  armies  and 
corruption  ;  they  pressed  forward  the  great  ultimate  security 
of  English  freedom,  the  expulsion  of  the  house  of  Stuart.1 

Among  the  ardent  loyalists  who  formed  the  bulk  of  the 
o  option  present  parliament,  a  certain  number  of  a  differ- 
in  pariia-  ent  class  had  been  returned,  not  sufficient  of  them 
selves  to  constitute  a  very  effective  minority,  but 
of  considerable  importance  as  a  nucleus,  round  which  the 
lesser  factions  that  circumstances  should  produce  might  be 
gathered.  Long  sessions,  and  a  long  continuance  of  the  same 
parliament,  have  an  inevitable  tendency  to  generate  a  sys 
tematic  opposition  to  the  measures  of  the  crown,  which  it 
requires  all  vigilance  and  management  to  hinder  from  be 
coming  too  powerful.  The  sense  of  personal  importance, 
the  desire  of  occupation  in  business  (a  very  characteristic 
propensity  of  the  English  gentry),  the  various  inducements 
of  private  passion  and  interest,  bring  forward  so  many  active 
spirits,  that  it  was,  even  in  that  age,  as  reasonable  to  expect 
that  the  ocean  should  always  be  tranquil  as  that  a  house  of 
commons  should  continue  long  to  do  the  king's  bidding  with 
any  kind  of  unanimity  or  submission.  Nothing  can  more 
demonstrate  the  incompatibility  of  the  tory  system,  which 
would  place  the  virtual  and  effective,  as  well  as  nominal, 
administration  of  the  executive  government  in  the  sole  hands 
of  the  crown,  with  the  existence  of  a  representative  assem 
bly,  than  the  history  of  this  long  parliament  of  Charles  II.2 

i  The  Memoires  de  Grammont  are  (such,  sometimes,  as  we  might  otherwise 
known  to  everybody,  and  are  almost  almost  blush  to  peruse)  we  have  before 
unique  in  their  kind,  not  only  for  the  us  the  handwriting  on  the  wall,  the  win- 
grace  of  their  style  and  the  vivacity  of  tor  whirlwind  huslied  in  its  grim  repose 
their  pictures,  but  for  the  happy  igno-  and  expecting  its  prey,  the  vengeance  of 
ranee  in  which  the  author  seems  to  have  an  oppressed  people  and  long-forbearing 
lived  that  any  one  of  his  readers  could  Deity.  No  such  retribution  fell  on  the 
imagine  that  there  are  such  things  as  courtiers  of  Charles  II.,  but  they  earned 
virtue  and  principle  in  the  world.  In  in  their  own  age,  what  has  descended  to 
the  delirium  of  thoughtless  voluptuous-  posterity,  though  possibly  very  indifferent 
ness  they  resemble  some  of  the  memoirs  to  themselves,  the  disgust  and  aversion 
about  the  end  of  Louis  XV. 's  reign,  and  of  all  that  was  respectable  among  man- 
somewhat  later ;  though,  I  think,  even  in  kind. 

these  there  is  generally  some  effort,  here        2  [Aubrey  relates  a  saying  of  Harring- 

and  there,  at  moral   censure,  or    some  ton,  just    before    the  restoration,  which 

affectation  of  sensibility.     T/iey,  indeed,  shows    his    sagacity.     "  Well !    the   king 

have  always  an  awful  moral ;  and  in  the  will  come  in.     Let  him  come  in  and  call 

light  portraits  of  the  court  of  Versailles  a  parliament  of  the  greatest  cavaliers  in 


CHA.  II.— 1000-73.      APPROPRIATION   OF   SUPPLIES.  339 

None  has  ever  been  elected  in  circumstances  so  favorable  for 
the  crown,  none  ever  brought  with  it  such  high  notions  of 
prerogative  ;  yet  in  this  assembly  a  party  soon  grew  up,  and 
gained  strength  in  every  successive  year,  which  the  king  could 
neither  direct  nor  subdue.  The  methods  of  bribery,  to  which 
the  court  had  largely  recourse,  though  they  certainly  diverted 
some  of  the  measures,  and  destroyed  the  character,  of  this 
opposition,  proved  in  the  end  like  those  dangerous  medicines 
which  palliate  the  instant  symptoms  of  a  disease  that  they 
aggravate.  The  leaders  of  this  parliament  were,  in  general, 
very  corrupt  men  ;  but  they  knew  better  than  to  quit  the 
power  which  made  them  worth  purchase.  Thus  the  house 
of  commons  matured  and  extended  those  rights  of  inquiring 
into  and  controlling  the  management  of  public  affairs,  which 
had  caused  so  much  dispute  in  former  times  ;  and,  as  the  ex 
ercise  of  these  functions  became  more  habitual,  and  passed 
with  little  or  no  open  resistance  from  the  crown,  the  people 
learned  to  reckon  them  unquestionable  or  even  fundamental; 
and  were  prepared  for  that  more  perfect  settlement  of  the 
constitution  on  a  more  republican  basis,  which  took  place 
after  the  revolution.  The  reign  of  Charles  II.,  though  dis 
playing  some  stretches  of  arbitrary  power,  and  threatening  a 
great  deal  more,  was,  in  fact,  the  transitional  state  between 
the  ancient  and  modern  schemes  of  the  English  constitution ; 
between  that  course  of  government  where  the  executive 
power,  so  far  as  executive,  was  very  little  bounded  except 
by  the  laws,  and  that  where  it  can  only  be  carried  on,  even 
within  its  own  province,  by  the  consent  and  cooperation,  in 
a  great  measure,  of  the  parliament. 

The  commons  took  advantage  of  the  pressure  which  the 
war  with  Holland  brought  on  the  administration,  . 

°  '  Appropria 

te  establish  two  very  important  principles  on  the  tion  of 

basis  of  their  sole  right  of  taxation.  The  first  of  sui}Plies- 
these  was  the  appropriation  of  supplies  to  limited  purposes. 
This,  indeed,  was  so  far  from  an  absolute  novelty,  that  it 
found  precedents  in  the  reigns  of  Richard  II.  and  Henry 
IV.  ;  a  period  when  the  authority  of  the  house  of  commons 
was  at  a  very  high  pitch.  No  subsequent  instance,  I  believe, 

England,  so  they  be  men  of  estates,  and  leian,  vol.  ii.  p.  373.  By  commonwealth's 

let  them  sit  but  seven  years,  and  they  men  he  probably  meant    only  men  who 

will  all  turn  commonwealth's  men."   Let-  would  stand  up  for  public  liberty  against 

tens  of  Aubrey  and  others,  from  the  Bod-  the  crown.  — 1845.] 


340  APPROPRIATION  OF   SUPPLIES.  CHAP.  XL 

was  on  record  till  the  year  1624,  when  the  last  parliament 
of  James  I.,  at  the  king's  own  suggestion,  directed  their  sup 
ply  for  the  relief  of  the  Palatinate  to  be  paid  into  the  hands 
of  commissioners  named  by  themselves.  There  were  cases 
of  a  similar  nature  in  the  year  1G41,  which,  though  of  course 
they  could  no  longer  be  upheld  as  precedents,  had  accus 
tomed  the  house  to  the  idea  that  they  had  something  more  to 
do  than  simply  to  grant  money,  without  any  security  or  pro 
vision  for  its  application.  In  the  session  of  1G65,  accord 
ingly,  an  enormous  supply,  as  it  then  appeared,  of  1,250,000/., 
after  one  of  double  that  amount  in  the  preceding  year,  hav 
ing  been  voted  for  the  Dutch  war,  Sir  George  Downing,  one 
of  the  tellers  of  the  exchequer,  introduced  into  the  subsidy 
bill  a  proviso  that  the  money  raised  by  virtue  of  that  act 
should  be  applicable  only  to  the  purposes  of  the  war.1 
Clarendon  inveighed  with  fury  against  this,  as  an  innova 
tion  derogatory  to  the  honor  of  the  crown  ;  but  the  king 
himself,  having  listened  to  some  who  persuaded  him  that  the 
money  would  be  advanced  more  easily  by  the  bankers,  in 
anticipation  of  the  revenue,  upon  this  better  security  for 
speedy  repayment,  insisted  that  it  should  not  be  thrown  out.2 
That  supplies,  granted  by  parliament,  are  only  to  be  ex 
pended  for  particular  objects  specified  by  itself,  became,  from 
this  time,  an  undisputed  principle,  recognized  by  frequent 
and  at  length  constant  practice.  It  drew  with  it  the  neces 
sity  of  estimates  regularly  laid  before  the  house  of  com 
mons  ;  and,  by  exposing  the  management  of  the  public  rev 
enues,  has  given  to  parliament,  not  only  a  real  and  effective 
control  over  an  essential  branch  of  the  executive  administra 
tion,  but,  in  some  measure,  rendered  them  partakers  in  it.3 
It  was  a  consequence  of  this  right  of  appropriation  that 

1  This   was  carried  on  a  division   by  men .     They  were  a  tribe  that  had  risen 
172   to  102.     Journals,  25th  November,  and  grown  up  in  Cromwell's   time,  and 
1665.     It  was  to  be  raised  "  in  a  regulat-  never   were    heard    of   before    the    late 
ed  subsidiary  way,  reducing  the  same  to  trouble,    till   when   the   whole   trade   of 
a  certainty  in  all  counties,  so  as  no  per-  money  had  passed  through  the  hands  of 
son,  for  his  real  or  personal  estate,  be  ex-  the  scriveners.     They  were,  for  the  most 
empted."     They  seem  to  have  had  some  part,  goldsmiths  — men  known  to  be  so 
difficulty   in  raising    this  vast   subsidy,  rich,  and  of  so  good  reputation,  that  all 
Parliamentary  History,  305.  the   money   of    the  kingdom   would   be 

2  17  Car.   2,   c.  1.      The  same  clause  trusted   or   deposited   in    their   hands." 
is  repeated  next  year,  and  has  become  Life  of  Clarendon,  vol.  iii.  p.  7. — 1845.] 
regular.     [  "  The  bankers  did  not  consist  3  Life  of  Clarendon,  p.  315.     Hatsell's 
of  above  the  number  of  five  or  six  men,  Precedents,  iii.  80.     The  principle  of  ap- 
some  whereof  were   aldermen  and    had  propriation   was    not    carried   into    full 
been  lord-mayors  of  London,  and  all  the  effect  till  after  the  Revolution.     Id.  179, 
rest  were  aldermen  or  had  fined  for  alder-  484. 


CIIA.  II.  —  1G60-73.       COMMISSION   OF   ACCOUNTS.  341 

the  house  of  commons  should  be  able  to  satisfy  itself  as  to 
the  expenditure  of  their  moneys  in  the  services  Commission 
for  which  they  were  voted.  But  they  might  claim  of  public 
a  more  extensive  function,  as  naturally  derived  "* 
from  their  power  of  opening  and  closing  the  public  purse, 
that  of  investigating  the  wisdom,  faithfulness,  and  economy 
with  which  their  grants  had  been  expended.  For  this,  too, 
there  was  some  show  of  precedents  in  the  ancient  days  of 
Henry  IV.  ;  but  what  undoubtedly  had  most  influence  was 
the  recollection  that  during  the  late  civil  war,  and  in  the 
times  of  the  commonwealth,  the  house  had  superintended, 
through  its  committees,  the  whole  receipts  and  issues  of  the 
national  treasury.  This  had  not  been  much  practised  since 
the  restoration.  But  in  the  year  1GG6,  the  large  cost  and 
indifferent  success  of  the  Dutch  war  begetting  vehement 
suspicions,  not  only  of  profuseness  but  of  diversion  of  the 
public  money  from  its  proper  purposes,  the  house  appointed 
a  committee  to  inspect  the  accounts  of  the  officers  of  the 
navy,  ordnance,  and  stores,  which  were  laid  before  them,  as 
it  appears,  by  the  king's  direction.  This  committee,  after 
some  time,  having  been  probably  found  deficient  in  powers, 
and  particularly  being  incompetent  to  administer  an  oath,  the 
house  determined  to  proceed  in  a  more  novel  and  vigorous 
manner  ;  and  sent  up  a  bill,  nominating  commissioners  to 
inspect  the  public  accounts,  who  were  to  possess  full  powers 
of  inquiry,  and  to  report  with  respect  to  such  persons  as  they 
should  find  to  have  broken  their  trust.  The  immediate  ob 
ject  of  this  inquiry,  so  far  as  appears  from  lord  Clarendon's 
mention  of  it,  was  rather  to  discover  whether  the  treasurers 
had  not  issued  money  without  legal  warrant  than  to  enter 
upon  the  details  of  its  expenditure.  But  that  minister, 
bigoted  to  his  tory  creed  of  prerogative,  thought  it  the  high 
est  presumption  for  a  parliament  to  intermeddle  with  the 
course  of  government.  He  spoke  of  this  bill  as  an  encroach 
ment  and  usurpation  that  had  no  limits,  and  pressed  the  king 
to  be  firm  in  his  resolution  never  to  consent  to  it.1  Nor  was 
the  king  less  averse  to  a  parliamentary  commission  of  this 
nature,  as  well  from  a  jealousy  of  its  interference  with  his 
prerogative  as  from  a  consciousness,  which  Clarendon  him 
self  suggests,  that  great  sums  had  been  issued  by  his  orders 

i  Life  of  Clarendon,  p.   368.     Burnet  observes,  it  was  looked  upon  at  the  time  as 
a  great  iuuovation  :  p.  335. 


342  COMMISSION  OF   ACCOUNTS.  CHAP.  XL 

which  could  not  be  put  in  any  public  account ;  that  is  (for 
we  can  give  no  other  interpretation),  that  the  moneys  granted 
for  the  war,  and  appropriated  by  statute  to  that  service,  had 
been  diverted  to  supply  his  wasteful  and  debauched  course 
of  pleasures.1  It  was  the  suspicion,  or  rather  private  knowl 
edge,  of  this  criminal  breach  of  trust,  which  had  led  to  the 
bill  in  question.  But  such  a  slave  was  Clarendon  to  his 
narrow  prepossessions,  that  he  would  rather  see  the  dissolute 
excesses  which  he  abhorred  suck  nourishment  from  that 
revenue  which  had  been  allotted  to  maintain  the  national 
honor  and  interests,  and  which,  by  its  deficiencies  thus  ag 
gravated,  had  caused  even  in  this  very  year  the  navy  to  be 
laid  up,  and  the  coasts  to  be  left  defenceless,  than  suffer 
them  to  be  restrained  by  the  only  power  to  which  thought 
less  luxury  would  submit.  He  opposed  the  bill,  therefore, 
in  the  house  of  lords,  as  he  confesses,  with  much  of  that  in 
temperate  warmth  which  distinguished  him,  and  with  a  con 
tempt  of  the  lower  house  and  its  authority,  as  imprudent  in 
respect  to  his  own  interests  as  it  was  unbecoming  and  un 
constitutional.  The  king  prorogued  parliament  while  the 
measure  was  depending ;  but  iu  hopes  to  pacify  the  house  of 
commons,  promised  to  issue  a  commission  under  the  great 
seal  for  the  examination  of  public  accountants ; 2  an  expe 
dient  which  was  not  likely  to  bring  more  to  light  than  suited 
his  purpose.  But  it  does  not  appear  that  this  royal  commis 
sion,  though  actually  prepared  and  sealed,  was  ever  carried 

l  Pepys's  Diary  has  lately  furnished  perceive  they  did  doubt  what  his  answer 
some  things  worthy  to  be  extracted,  could  be.''  September  23,  1666. — The 
"  Mr.  W.  and  I  by  water  to  Whitehall,  money  granted  the  king  for  the  war  he 
and  thereat  sir  George  (Jarteret's  lodg-  afterwards  reckons  at  5,590,000/.,  and  the 
ings  sir  William  Coventry  met;  and  we  debt  at  900.00CM.  The  charge  stated  only 
did  debate  the  whole  business  of  our  ac-  at  3,200,000/.  "  So  what  is  become  of 
counts  to  the  parliament  ;  where  it  ap-  all  this  sum,  2.390.000L  !  "  He  mentions 
pears  to  us  that  the  charge  of  the  war  afterwards,  Oct.  8,  the  proviso  in  the  poll- 
from  Sept.  1,  1664,  to  this  Michaelmas,  tax  bill,  that  there  shall  be  a  committee 
will  have  been  but  3.20U.OOO/.,  and  of  nine  persons  to  have  the  inspection 
we  have  paid  in  that  time  somewhat  on  oath  of  all  the  accounts  of  the  money 
about  2.200, 000^.,  so  that  we  owe  about  given  and  spent  for  the  war,  '-which 
900.000/. :  but  our  method  of  accounting,  makes  the  king  and  court  mad  ;  the  king 
though  it  cannot,  I  believe,  be  far  wide  having  given  order  to  my  lord  chamber- 
from  the  mark,  yet  will  not  abide  a  strict  lain  to  send  to  the  playhouses  and  broth- 
examination,  if  the  parliament  should  be  els,  to  bid  all  the  parliament-men  that 
troublesome.  Here  happened  a  pretty  were  there  to  go  to  the  parliament  pres- 
question  of  sir  William  Coventry,  wheth-  ently;  but  it  was  carried  against  the 
er  this  account  of  ours  will  not  put  my  court  by  thirty  or  forty  voices/'  It  was 
lord  treasurer  to  a  difficulty  to  tell  what  thought,  he  says,  Dec.  12,  that  above 
is  become  of  all  the  money  the  parliament  400, OOO/.  had  gone  into  the  privy  purse 
have  given  in  this  time  for  the  war,  which  since  the  war. 
hath  amounted  to  about  4.000,000/.,  2  Life  of  Clarendon,  p.  392. 
which  nobody  there  could  answer;  but  I 


CHA.  II.  —  1600-73.      DECLINE  OF  CLARENDON'S  POWER.       343 

into  effect ;  for  in  the  ensuing  session,  the  great  minister's 
downfall  having  occurred  in  the  mean  time,  the  house  of 
commons  brought  forward  again  their  bill,  which  passed  into 
a  law.  It  invested  the  commissioners  therein  nominated 
with  very  extensive  and  extraordinary  powers,  both  as  to 
auditing  public  accounts  and  investigating  the  frauds  that 
had  taken  place  in  the  expenditure  of  money  and  employ 
ment  of  stores.  They  were  to  examine  upon  oath,  to  sum 
mon  inquests  if  they  thought  fit,  to  commit  persons  disobey 
ing  their  orders  to  prison  without  bail,  to  determine  finally 
on  the  charge  and  discharge  of  all  accountants ;  the  barons 
of  the  exchequer,  upon  a  certificate  of  their  judgment,  were 
to  issue  process  for  recovering  money  to  the  king's  use,  as  if 
there  had  been  an  immediate  judgment  of  their  own  court. 
Reports  were  to  be  made  of  the  commissioners'  proceedings 
from  time  to  time  to  the  king  and  to  both  houses  of  parlia 
ment.  None  of  the  commissioners  were  members  of  either 
house.  The  king,  as  may  be  supposed,  gave  way  very  re 
luctantly  to  this  interference  with  his  expenses.  It  brought 
to  light  a  great  deal  of  abuse  and  misapplication  of  the  public 
revenues,  and  contributed  doubtless  in  no  small  degree  to 
destroy  the  house's  confidence  in  the  integrity  of  government, 
and  to  promote  a  more  jealous  watchfulness  of  the  king's 
designs.1  At  the  next  meeting  of  parliament,  in  October, 
1661),  sir  George  Carteret,  treasurer  of  the  navy,  was  ex 
pelled  the  house  for  issuing  money  without  legal  warrant. 

Sir  Edward  Hyde,  whose  influence  had  been  almost  anni 
hilated  in  the  last  years  of  Charles  I.  through  the  inveterate 
hatred  of  the  queen  and  those  who  surrounded  her,  acquired 
by  degrees    the   entire   confidence  of  the    young  Decline  of 
king,  and  baffled  all  the  intrigues  of  his  enemies,  clarendon's 
Guided  by  him,  in  all  serious  matters,  during  the  P°wer- 
latter  years  of  his  exile,  Charles  followed  his  counsels  almost 
implicitly  in  the  difficult  crisis  of  the  restoration.     The  office 
of  chancellor  and  the  title  of  earl  of  Clarendon  were  the 
proofs  of  the  king's  favor ;  but  in  effect,  through  the  indo 
lence  and  ill  health  of  Southampton,  as  well  as  their  mutual 

l  19  &  20  Car.  IT.c.  1.  Burnet,  p.  374.  acted    with   more   technical    rigor   than 

They  reported  unaccounted  balances  of  equity,  surcharging  the  accountants  for 

1.509.161/.,  besides  much  that  was  ques-  all  sums  not  expended  since  the  war  be- 

tionable  in  the  payments.  But,  according  gan,  though   actually   expended  for  the 

to  Ralph,  p.  177.  the  commissioners  had  purposes  of  preparation. 


344 


DECLINE   OF   CLARENDON'S   POWER.      CHAP.  XL 


friendship,  he  was  the  real  minister  of  the  crown.1  By  the 
clandestine  marriage  of  his  daughter  with  the  duke  of  York, 
he  changed  one  brother  from  an  enemy  to  a  sincere  and 
zealous  friend,  without  forfeiting  the  esteem  and  favor  of  the 
other.  And  though  he  was  wise  enough  to  dread  the  in- 
vidiousness  of  such  an  elevation,  yet  for  several  years  it  by 
no  means  seemed  to  render  his  influence  less  secure.2 


1  Burnet,   p.  130.     Southampton  left 
all  the  business  of  the  treasury,  accord 
ing  to  Burnet.  p.  131.  in  the  hands  of  sir 
Philip  Warwick,  "a  weak  but  incorrupt 
man."     The  king,  he  says,  chose  to  put 
up   with   his   contradiction  rather   than 
make   him   popular   by  dismissing  him. 
But  in  fict,  as  we  see  by  Clarendon's  in 
stance,   the  king  retained  his  ministers 
long  after  he  was  displeased  with  them. 
Southampton's  remissness  and  slowness, 
notwithstanding    his    integrity,     Pepys 
says,  was  the  cause  of  undoing  the  nation 
as  much  as  anything;  "yet,  if  I  knew 
all  the  difficulties  he  has  lain  under,  and 
his  instrument    sir    Philip   Warwick,   I 
might   be  of  another  mind."     May   16, 
1667.  —  He   was   willing    to    have    done 
something,  Clarendon  tells  us,  p.  415,  to 
gratify  the  presbyterians ;  on  which  ac 
count    the    bishops    thought    him    not 
enough    affected    to    the    church.      His 
friend  endeavors   to  extenuate  this  hei 
nous  sin  of  tolerant  principles. 

2  The  behavior  of  lord  Clarendon  on 
this  occasion  was  so  extraordinary,  that 
no  credit  coxild  have  been  given  to  any 
other  account  than  his  own.     The  duke 
of  York,  he  says,  informed  the  king  of 
the   affection  and  friendship    that    had 
long  been  between  him  and  the  young 
lady ;    that    they   had    been    long   con 
tracted,  and   that  she  was  with   child  ; 
and    therefore   requested    his    majesty's 
leave  that  he  might  publicly  marry  her. 
The  marquis  of  Ormond  by    the  king's 
order  communicated  this    to  the  chan 
cellor,  who  '<  broke  out  into  an  immod 
erate  passion  against  the  wickedness  of 
his  daughter  ;  and  said,  with  all  imagin 
able  earnestness,  that  as  soon  as  he  came 
home  he  would  turn  her  out  of  his  house 
as  a  strumpet  to  shift  for  herself,  and 
would  never  see  her  again.     They  told 
him  that  his  passion  was  too  violent  to 
administer  good  counsel  to   him  ;    that 
they  thought  that  the  duke  was  married 
to   his   daughter ;   and   that  there   were 
other  measures  to  be  taken  than  those 
which  the  disorder  he  was  in  had  sug 
gested  to  him.     Whereupon  he  fell  into 
new  commotions  ;  and  said,  If  that  were 
true,  he  was  well  prepared  to  advise  what 
was    to    be  done ;    that  he  had    much 


rather  his  daughter  should  be  the  duke's 
whore  than  his  wife  :  in  the  former  case, 
nobody  could  blame  him  for  the  resolu 
tion  he  had  taken,  for  he  was  not  obliged 
to  keep  a  whore  for  the  greatest  prince 
alive  ;  and  the  indignity  to  himself  he 
would  submit  to  the  good  pleasure  of 
God.  But,  if  there  were  any  reason  to 
suspect  the  other,  he  was  ready  to  give 
a  positive  judgment,  in  which  he  hoped 
their  lordships  would  concur  with  him, 
that  the  king  should  immediately  cause 
the  woman  to  be  sent  to  the  Toiver  and 
cast  into  the  dungeon,  under  so  strict  a 
guard  that  no  person  living  should  be 
admitted  to  come  to  her  ;  and  then  that 
an  act  of  parliament  should  be  imme 
diately  paused  for  cutting  off"  her  head, 
to  which  he  would  not  only  give  his  con 
sent,  but  would  very  willingly  be  the  first 
man  that  should  propose  it.  And  who 
ever  knew  the  man  will  believe  that  he 
said  all  this  very  heartily."  Lord  South 
ampton,  he  proceeds  to  inform  us,  on  the 
king's  entering  the  room  at  the  time,  said 
very  naturally  that  the  chancellor  was 
mad,  and  had  proposed  such  extravagant 
things  that  he  was  no  more  to  be  con 
sulted  with.  This,  however,  did  not 
bring  him  to  his  senses  ;  for  he  repeated 
his  strange  proposal  of  "  sending  her 
presently  to  the  Tower,  and  the  rest ;  " 
imploring  the  king  to  take  this  course, 
as  the  ouly  expedient  that  could  free  him 
from  the  evils  that  this  business  would 
otherwise  bring  upon  him. 

That  any  man  of  sane  intellect  should 
fall  into  such  an  extravagance  of  passion 
is  sufficiently  wonderful:  that  he  should 
sit  down  in  cool  blood  several  years  after 
wards  to  relate  it  is  still  more  so  ;  and 
perhaps  we  shall  carry  our  candor  to  an 
excess,  if  we  do  not  set  down  the  whole 
of  this  scene  to  overacted  hypocrisy. 
Charles  IT.,  we  may  be  very  sure,  could 
see  it  in  no  other  light.  And  here  I  must 
take  notice,  by  the  way,  of  the  singular 
observation  the  worthy  editor  of  Burnet 
has  made  :  — '"  King  Charles's  conduct  in 
this  business  was  excellent  throughout ; 
that  of  Clarendon  worthy  an  ancient  Ro 
man."  We  have  indeed  a  Roman  pre 
cedent  for  subduing  the  sentiments  of 
nature,  rather  then  permitting  a  daughter 


CHA.  II.  — 1060-73. 


CLARENDON. 


345 


Both  in  their  characters,  however,  and  turn  of  thinking, 
there  was  so  little  conformity  between  Clarendon  and  his 
master,  that  the  continuance  of  his  ascendency  can  only  be 


to  incur  disgrace  through  the  passions  of 
the  great;  but  I  thiuk  Virginias  would 
not  quite  have  understood  the  feelings 
of  Clarendon.  Such  virtue  was  more 
like  what  Montesquieu  calls  •'  1'heroYsme 
de  1'esclavage,"  and  was  just  fit  for  the 
court  of  Gondar.  But  with  all  this  vio 
lence  that  he  records  of  himself,  he 
deviates  greatly  from  the  truth  :  '•  The 
king  "  (he  says)  "  afterwards  spoke  every 
day  about  it,  and  told  the  chancellor 
that  he  must  behave  himself  wisely,  for 
that  the  thing  was  remediless,  and  that 
his  majesty  knew  that  they  were  mar 
ried;  which  would  quickly  appear  to  all 
men  who  knew  that  nothing  could  be 
done  upon  it.  In  this  time  the  chancel 
lor  had  conferred  with  his  daughter, 
•without  anything  of  indulgence,  and  not 
only  discovered  that  they  were  unques 
tionably  married,  but  by  whom,  and  iv/io 
were  present  at  it,  who  would  be  ready  to 
avow  it;  which  pleased  him  not.  though 
it  diverted  him  from  using  some  of  that 
rigor  which  he  intended.  And  he  saw 
no  other  remedy  could  be  applied  but 
that  which  he  had  proposed  to  the  king, 
who  thought  of  nothing  like  it."  Life 
of  Clarendon,  29.  et  post. 

Every  one  would  conclude  from  this 
that  a  marriage  had  been  solemnized,  if 
not  before  their  arrival  in  England,  yet 
before  the  chancellor  had  this  conference 
with  his  daughter.  It  appears,  however, 
from  the  duke  of  York's  declaration  in 
the  books  of  the  privy  council,  quoted 
by  Ralph,  p.  40,  that  he  was  contracted 
to  Ann  Hyde  on  the  24th  of  November, 
1659.  at  Breda;  and  after  that  time  lived 
with  her  as  his  wife,  though  very  se 
cretly  :  he  married  her  3d  Sept.  1660, 
according  to  the  English  ritual,  lord 
Ossory  giving  her  away.  The  first  child 
was  born  Oct.  22,  1660.  Now,  whether 
the  contract  were  sufficient  to  constitute 
a  valid  marriage  will  depend  on  two 
things  ;  first,  upon  the  law  existing  at 
Breda  ;  secondly,  upon  the  applicability 
of  what  is  commonly  called  the  rule  of 
the  lex  loci  to  a  marriage  between  such 
persons  according  to  the  received  notions 
of  English  lawyers  in  that  age.  But, 
even  admitting"  all  this,  it  is  still  man 
ifest  that  Clarendon's  expressions  point 
to  an  actual  celebration,  and  are  conse 
quently  intended  to  mislead  the  reader. 
Certain  it  is,  that  at  the  time  the  con 
tract  seems  to  have  been  reckoned  only 
an  honorary  obligation.  James  tells  us 
himself  (Macpherson's  Extracts,  p.  17) 
that  he  promised  to  marry  her ;  and 


"  though,  when  he  asked  the  king  for 
his  leave,  he  refused  and  dissuaded  him 
from  it,  yet  at  last  he  opposed  it  no  more, 
and  the  duke  married  her  privately,  and 
owned  it  some  time  after."  His  biogra 
pher,  writing  from  James's  own  manu 
script,  adds,  "  It  may  well  be  supposed 
that  my  lord  chancellor  did  his  part,  but 
with  great  caution  and  circumspection, 
to  soften  the  king  in  that  matter  which 
in  every  respect  seemed  so  much  for  his 
own  advantage."  Life  of  James,  387. 
And  Pepys  inserts  in  his  Diary,  Feb.  23, 
1661,  "  Mr.  II.  told  me  how  my  lord 
chancellor  had  lately  got  the  duke  of 
York  and  duchess,  and  her  woman, 
my  lord  Ossory  and  a  doctor,  to  make 
oath  before  most  of  the  judges  of  the 
kingdom,  concerning  all  the  circum 
stances  of  their  marriage.  And,  in  fine, 
it  is  confessed  that  they  were  not  fully 
married  till  about  a  month  or  two  before 
she  was  brought  to  bed  ;  but  that  they 
were  contracted  long  before,  and  [were 
married]  time  enough  for  the  child  to  be 
legitimate.  But  I  do  not  hear  that  it 
was  put  to  the  judges  to  determine  that 
it  was  so  or  not."  There  was  no  ques 
tion  to  put  about  the  child's  legitimacy, 
which  was  beyond  all  doubt.  He  had 
said  before  that  lord  Sandwich  told  him. 
17th  Oct.  1660,  ''the  king  wanted  him 
[the  duke]  to  marry  her,  but  he  would 
not."  This  seems  at  first  sight  incon 
sistent  with  what  James  says  himself. 
But  at  this  time,  though  the  private 
marriage  had  really  taken  place,  he  had 
been  persuaded  by  a  most  infamous  con 
spiracy  of  some  profligate  courtiers  that 
the  lady  was  of  a  licentious  character, 
and  that  Berkeley,  afterwards  lord  Fal- 
mouth,  had  enjoyed  her  favors.  Life  of 
Clarendon,  33.  It  must  be  presumed 
that  those  men  knew  only  of  a  contract 
which  they  thought  he  could  break. 
Hamilton,  in  the  Memoirs  of  Grammont, 
speaks  of  this  transaction  with  his  usual 
levity,  though  the  parties  showed  them 
selves  as  destitute  of  spirit  as  of  honor 
and  humanity.  Clarendon,  we  must  be 
lieve  (and  the  most  favorable  hypothesis 
for  him  is  to  give  up  his  veracity ),  would 
not  permit  his  daughter  to  be  made  the 
victim  of  a  few  perjured  debauchees,  and 
of  her  husband's  fickleness  or  credulity. 
[Upon  reconsidering  this  note,  I  think 
it  probable  that  Clarendon's  conversation 
with  his  daughter,  when  he  ascertained 
her  marriage,  was  subsequent  to  the  3d 
of  September.  It  is  always  difficult  to 
make  out  his  dates.  — 1845.] 


346  CLARENDON.  CHAP.  XT. 

attributed  to  the  power  of  early  habit  over  the  most  thought 
less  tempers.  But  it  rarely  happens  that  kings  do  not  ulti 
mately  shake  off  these  fetters,  and  release  themselves  from 
the  sort  of  subjection  which  they  feel  in  acting  always  by  the 
same  advisers.  Charles,  acute  himself  and  cool-headed,  could 
not  fail  to  discover  the  passions  and  prejudices  of  his  minister, 
even  if  he  had  wanted  the  suggestion  of  others  who,  without 
reasoning  on  such  broad  principles  as  Clarendon,  were  per 
haps  his  superiors  in  judging  of  temporary  business.  He 
wished,  too,  as  is  common,  to  depreciate  a  wisdom,  and  to 
suspect  a  virtue,  which  seemed  to  reproach  his  own  vice  and 
folly.  Nor  had  Clarendon  spared  those  remonstrances  against 
the  king's  course  of  life  which  are  seldom  borne  without  im 
patience  or  resentment.  He  was  strongly  suspected  by  the 
king  as  well  as  his  courtiers  (though,  according  to  his  own 
account,  without  any  reason)  of  having  promoted  the  mar 
riage  of  Miss  Stewart  with  the  duke  of  Richmond.1  But 
above  all  he  stood  in  the  way  of  projects  which,  though  still 
probably  unsettled,  were  floating  in  the  king's  rnind.  No  one 
was  more  zealous  to  uphold  the  prerogative  at  a  height  where 
it  must  overtop  and  chill  with  its  shadow  the  privileges  of  the 
people.  No  one  was  more  vigilant  to  limit  the  functions  of 
parliament,  or  more  desirous  to  see  them  confiding  and  sub 
missive.  But  there  were  landmarks  which  he  could  never 
be  brought  to  transgress.  He  would  prepare  the  road  for 
absolute  monarchy,  but  not  introduce  it ;  he  would  assist  to 
batter  down  the  walls,  but  not  to  march  into  the  town.  His 
notions  of  what  the  English  constitution  ought  to  be  appeal- 
evidently  to  have  been  derived  from  the  times  of  Elizabeth 
and  James  I.,  to  which  he  frequently  refers  with  approbation. 
In  the  history  of  that  age  he  found  much  that  could  not  be 
reconciled  to  any  liberal  principles  of  government.  But 
there  were  two  things  which  he  certainly  did  not  find  —  a 
revenue  capable  of  meeting  an  extraordinary  demand  without 
parliamentary  supply,  and  a  standing  army.  Hence  he  took 
no  pains,  if  he  did  not  even,  as  is  asserted  by  Burnet,  dis 
courage  the  proposal  of  others,  to  obtain  such  a  fixed  annual 
revenue  for  the  kins  on  the  restoration  as  would  have  ren- 


i  Hamilton  mentions  this  as  the  cur-  any  acquaintance  with  the  parties.     He 

rent  rumor  of  the  court,  and  Burnet  has  wrote  in  too  humble  a  strain  to  the  king 

done  the  same.     But  Clarendon  himself  on  the  subject.     Life  of  Ular.  p.  454. 
denies  that  he  had  any  concern  in  it,  or 


CIIA.  II.  — 16GO-73.  CLAREXDOX.  347 

dered  it  very  rarely  necessary  to  have  recourse  to  parlia 
ment,1  and  did  not  advise  the  keeping  up  any  part  of  the 
army.  That  a  few  troops  were  retained  was  owing  to  the 
duke  of  York.  Nor  did  he  go  the  length  that  was  expected 
in  procuring  the  repeal  of  all  the  laws  that  had  been  enacted 
in  the  long  parliament.2 

These  omissions  sank  deep  in  Charles's  heart,  especially 
when  he  found  that  he  had  to  deal  with  an  unmanageable 
house  of  commons,  and  must  fight  the  battle  for  arbitrary 
power ;  which  might  have  been  achieved,  he  thought,  without 
a  struggle  by  his  minister.  There  was  still  less  hope  of  ob 
taining  any  concurrence  from  Clarendon  in  the  king's  designs 
as  to  religion.  Though  he  does  not  once  hint  at  it  in  his 
writings,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  he  must  have  suspected 
his  master's  inclinations  towards  the  church  of  Rome.  The 
duke  of  York  considered  this  as  the  most  likely  cause  of  his 
remissness  in  not  sufficiently  advancing  the  prerogative.3  He 
was  always  opposed  to  the  various  schemes  of  a  general  in 
dulgence  towards  popery,  not  only  from  his  strongly  protes- 
tant  principles  and  his  dislike  of  all  toleration,  but  from  a 
prejudice  against  the  body  of  the  English  catholics,  whom  he 
thought  to  arrogate  more  on  the  ground  of  merit  than  they 
could  claim.  That  interest,  so  powerful  at  court,  was  decided 
ly  hostile  to  the  chancellor  ;  for  the  duke  of  York,  who  strict 
ly  adhered  to  him,  if  he  had  not  kept  his  change  of  religion 

i  Buriiet  says  that  Southampton  had  they  were  awhile  willing  to  grant  all  the 

come  into  a  scheme  of  obtaining  2.000.000/.  king  desired,  did  press  for  its  being  done ; 

as  the  annual  revenue  ;  which  was  pre-  and  so  it  was,  and  the  king  from  that 

vented  by  Clarendon,  lest  it  should  put  time  able  to  do  nothing  with  the  parlia- 

the   king   out    of  need   of  parliaments,  ment    almost."     March  20,   1669.      Ilari 

This  the  king  found  out,  and  hated  him  quippe  boni !     Neither  Southampton  nor 

mortally  for  it.    P.  223.    It  is  the  fashion  Coventry  make  the  figure  in  this  extract 

to  discredit  all  that  Burnet  says.      But  we    should  wish  to  find:    yet   who  were 

observe   what    we    may  read   in   Pepys  :  their  superiors  for  integrity  and  patriot- 

"  Sir   W.  Coventry  did  tell  me  it  as  the  ism  under  Charles  II.?     Perhaps  Pepys, 

wisest   thing   that  was   ever  said  to  the  like  most  gossiping  men,  was  not  always 

king  by  any  statesman  of  his  time  ;  and  correct. 

it  was  by  my  lord-treasurer  that  is  dead,  -  Macpherson's  Extracts  from  Life  of 
whom,  I  find,  he  takes  for  a  very  great  James,  17,  18.  Compare  Innes's  Life  of 
statesman,  that,  when  the  king  did  show  James,  published  by  Clarke,  i.  391,  393. 
himself  forward  for  passing  the  act  of  In  the  former  work  it  is  said  that  Clar- 
indemnity,  he  did  advise  the  king  that  endon,  upon  Venner's  insurrection,  ad- 
he  would  hold  his  hand  in  doing  it,  till  vised  that  the  guards  should  not  be  dis- 
he  had  got  his  power  restored  that  had  banded.  But  this  seems  to  be  a  mistake 
been  diminished  by  the  late  times,  and  in  copying  :  for  Clarendon,  read  the  duke 
his  revenue  settled  in  such  a  manner  as  of  York.  Pepys,  however,  who  heard  all 
he  might  depend  upon  himself  without  the  gossip  of  the  town,  mentions  the  year 
resting  upon  parliaments,  and  then  pass  after  that  the  chancellor  thought  of  rais- 
it.  But  my  lord  chancellor,  who  thought  ing  an  army,  with  the  duke  as  general, 
he  could  have  the  command  of  parlia-  Dec.  22,  1661. 
nients  forever,  because  for  the  king's  sake  3  Ibid. 


348 


COALITION  AGAINST   CLARENDON.         CHAP.  XL 


wholly  secret,  does  not  seem  to  have  hitherto  formed  any 
avowed  connection  with  the  popish  party.1 

This  estrangement  of  the  king's  favor  is  sufficient  to  ac 
count  for  Clarendon's  loss  of  power  ;  but  his  entire 
ruin  was  rather  accomplished  by  a  strange  coali 
tion  of  enemies,  which  his  virtues,  or  his  errors 
and  infirmities,  had  brought  into  union.  The  cava 
liers  hated  him  on  account  of  the  act  of  indemnity,  and  the 
presbyterians  for  that  of  uniformity.  Yet  the  latter  were  not 
in  general  so  eager  in  his  prosecution  as  the  others.2  But  he 
owed  great  part  of  the  severity  with  which  he  was  treated  to 
his  own  pride  and  ungovernable  passionateness,  by  which  he 


Loss  of  the 
king's  favor. 
Coalition 
against 
Clarendon. 


l  The  earl  of  Bristol,  with  all  his  con 
stitutional  precipitancy,  made  a  violent 
attack  on  Clarendon,  by  exhibiting  arti 
cles  of  treason  against  him  in  the  house 
of  lords  in  1663 ;  believing,  no  doubt,  that 
the  schemes  of  the  intriguers  were  more 
mature,  and  the  king  more  alienated, 
than  was  really  the  case,  and  thus  dis 
graced  himself  at  court  instead  of  his  en 
emy.  Parl.  Hist.  276.  Life  of  Clar.  209. 
Before  this  time  Pepys  had  heard  that  the 
chancellor  had  lost  the  king's  favor,  and 
that  Bristol,  with  Buckingham  and  two 
or  three  more,  ruled  him.  May  15,  1663. 

~  A  motion  to  refer  the  heads  of  charge 
against  Clarendon  to  a  committee  was  lost 
by  194  to  128;  Seymour  and  Osborne 
telling  the  noes.  Birch  and  Clarges  the 
ayes.  Commons'  Journals,  Nov.  6,  1667. 
These  names  show  how  parties  ran  :  Sey 
mour  and  Osborne  being  high-flying  cav 
aliers,  and  Birch  a  presbyterian.  A  mo 
tion  that  he  be  impeached  for  treason  on 
the  first  article  was  lost  by  172  to  103. 
the  two  former  being  tellers  for  the  ayes: 
Nov.  9.  In  the  Harleian  MS.  881,  we 
have  a  copious  account  of  the  debutes  on 
this  occasion,  and  a  transcript  in  No.  1218. 
Sir  Heneage  Finch  spoke  much  against 
the  charge  of  treason  ;  Maynard  seems  to 
have  done  the  same.  A  charge  of  secret 
correspondence  with  Cromwell  was  in 
troduced  merely  ad  invidiam,  the  prose 
cutors  admitting  that  it  was  pardoned  by 
the  act  of  indemnity,  but  wishing  to 
make  the  chancellor  plead  that :  Maynard 
and  Hampden  opposed  it,  and  it  was  giv 
en  up  out  of  shame  without  a  vote. 
Vaughan,  afterwards  chief-justice,  argued 
that  counselling  the  king  to  govern  by  a 
standing  army  was  treason  at  common 
law,  and  seems  to  dispute  what  Finch  laid 
down  most  broadly,  that  there  can  be  no 
such  thing  as  a  common-law  treason  ;  re 
lying  on  a  passage  in  Glanvill,  where  "  se- 
ducfio  domiui  regis  "  is  said  to  be  trea 


son.  Maynard  stood  up  for  the  opposite 
doctrine.  Waller  and  Vaugiian  argued 
that  the  sale  of  Dunkirk  was  treason,  but 
the  article  passed  without  declaring  it  to 
be  so  ;  nor  would  the  word  have  appeared 
probably  in  the  impeachment,  if  a  young 
lord,  Vaughan,  had  not  asserted  that  he 
could  prove  Clarendon  to  have  betrayed 
the  king's  councils,  on  which  an  article 
to  that  effect  was  carried  by  161  to  89. 
Garraway  and  Littleton  were  forward 
against  the  chancellor  ;  but  Coventry 
seems  to  have  taken  no  great  part.  See 
Pepys's  Diary,  Dec.  3d  and  6th,  1667. 
Baxter  also  says  that  the  presbyterians 
were  by  no  means  strenuous  against  Clar 
endon,  but  rather  the  contrary,  fearing 
that  worse  might  come  for  the  country, 
as  giving  him  credit  for  having  kept  off 
military  government.  Baxter's  Life,  part 
iii.  21.  This  is  very  highly  to  the  honor 
of  that  party  whom  he  had  so  much  op 
pressed,  if  not  betrayed.  "  It  was  a  no 
table  providence  of  God,"  he  says.  "  that 
this  man.  who  had  been  the  great  instru 
ment  of  state,  and  done  almost  all,  and 
had  dealt  so  cruelly  with  the  non-con 
formists,  should  thus  by  his  own  friends 
be  cast  out  and  banished  ;  while  those 
that  he  had  persecuted  were  the  most 
moderate  in  his  cause,  and  many  for  him. 
And  it  was  a  great  ease  that  befell  the 
good  people  throughout  the  land  by  his 
dejection.  For  his  way  was  to  decoy  men 
into  conspiracies  or  to  pretend  plots,  and 
upon  the  rumor  of  a  plot  the  innocent 
people  of  many  countries  were  laid  in 
prison,  so  that  no  man  knew  when  he 
was  safe.  Whereas  since  then,  though 
laws  have  been  made  more  and  more  se 
vere,  yet  a  man  knoweth  a  little  better 
what  he  is  to  expect  when  it  is  by  a  law 
that  he  is  to  be  tried."  Sham  plots  there 
seem  to  have  been  ;  but  it  is  not  reason 
able  to  charge  Clarendon  with  inventing 
them.  Ralph,  122. 


CHA.  II.  —  1GGO-73.        HIS   IMPEACHMENT. 


349 


had  rendered   very  eminent  men  in  the  house  of  commons 
implacable,  and  to  the  language  he  had  used  as  to  the  dignity 
and  privileges  of  the  house  itself.1     A  sense  of  this  eminent 
person's  great  talents  as  well  as  general  integrity  and  con 
scientiousness  on  the  one  hand,  an  indignation  at  the  king's 
ingratitude  and    the  profligate  counsels   of  those   who  sup 
planted  him  on  the  other,  have  led  most  writers  to  overlook 
his  faults  in  administration,  and  to  treat  all  the  articles  of 
accusation  against    him  as  frivolous  or  unsupported.     It  is 
doubtless  impossible  to  justify  the  charge  of  high-  His  im peach- 
treason  on  which  he  was  impeached  ;  but  there  are  nient;  some 
matters  that  never  were  or  could  be  disproved ;  and  uMot^n- 
our  own  knowledge  enables  us  to  add  such  grave  foullded- 
accusations  as  must  show  Clarendon's  unfitness  for  the  gov 
ernment  of  a  free  country.2 

1.  It  is  the  fourth  article  of  his  impeachment  that  he  "ad 
vised  and  procured  divers  of  his  majesty's  subjects  inegai  un 
to  be  imprisoned  against  law,  in  remote  islands,  prisonments. 
garrisons,  and  other  places,  thereby  to  prevent  them  from 
the  benefit  of  the  law,  and  to  produce  precedents  for  the 
imprisoning  any  other  of  his  majesty's  subjects  in  like  man 
ner."  This  was  undoubtedly  true.  There  was  some  ground 
for  apprehension  on  the  part  of  the  government  from  those 


l  In  his  wrath  against  the  proviso  in 
serted  by  sir  George  Downing,  as  above 
mentioned,  in  the  bill  of  supply,  Clar 
endon  told  him.  as  he  confesses,  that  the 
king  could  never  be  well  served  while 
fellows  of  his  condition  were  admitted  to 
speak  as  much  as  they  had  a  mind  ;  and 
that  in  the  best  times  such  presumptions 
had  been  punished  with  imprisonment  by 
the  lords  of  the  council,  without  the  king's 
taking  notice  of  it :  321.  The  king  was 
naturally  displeased  at  this  insolent  lan 
guage  towards  one  of  his  servants,  a  man 
who  had  filled  an  eminent  station,  and 
done  services,  for  a  suggestion  intended 
to  benefit  the  revenue.  And  it  was  a 
still  more  flagrant  affront  to  the  house  of 
commons,  of  which  Downing  was  a  mem 
ber,  and  where  he  had  proposed  this 
clause,  and  induced  the  house  to  adopt 
it. 

Coventry  told  Pepys  ''many  things 
about  the  chancellor's  dismissal  not  fit 
to  bespoken;  and  yet  not  any  unfaith 
fulness  to  the  king,  but  instar  omnium, 
that  he  was  so  great  at  the  council-board 
and  in  the  administration  of  matters 
there  was  no  room  for  anybody  to  pro 
pose  any  remedy  for  what  was  amiss,  or 


to  compass  anything,  though  never  so 
good  for  the  kingdom,  unless  approved 
of  by  the  chancellor;  he  managing  all 
things  with  that  greatness  which  now 
will  be  removed,  that  the  king  may  have 
the  benefit  of  others1  advice."  Sept.  2, 
1667.  His  own  memoirs  are  full  of  proofs 
of  this  haughtiness  and  intemperance. 
He  set  himself  against  Sir  William  Coven 
try,  and  speaks  of  a  man  as  able  and  vir 
tuous  as  himself  with  marked  aversion. 
See,  too,  Life  of  James,  398.  Coventry, 
according  to  this  writer,  431,  was  the 
chief  actor  in  Clarendon's  impeachment, 
but  this  seems  to  be  a  mistake ;  though 
he  was  certainly  desirous  of  getting  him. 
out  of  place. 

The  king,  Clarendon  tells  us  (438),  pre 
tended  that  the  anger  of  parliament  was 
such,  and  their  power  too.  as  it  was  not 
in  his  power  to  save  him'.  The  fallen 
minister  desired  him  not  to  fear  the 
power  of  parliament,  "  which  was  more 
or  less,  or  nothing,  as  he  pleased  to  make 
it.';  So  preposterous  as  well  as  uncon 
stitutional  a  way  of  talking  could  not 
but  aggravate  his  unpopularity  with  that 
great  body  he  pretended  to  contemn. 

2  State  Trials,  vi.  318.     i'arl.  Hist. 


350  IMPEACHMENT   OF   CLARENDON.  CHAP.  XL 

bold  spirits  who  had  been  accustomed  to  revolutions,  and 
drew  encouragement  from  the  vices  of  the  court  and  the  em 
barrassments  of  the  nation.  Ludlow  and  Algernon  Sidney, 
about  the  year  IGGo,  had  projected  an  insurrection,  the  latter 
soliciting  Louis  XIV.  and  the  pensionary  of  Holland  for  aid.1 
Many  officers  of  the  old  army,  Wildman,  Creed,  and  others, 
suspected,  perhaps  justly,  of  such  conspiracies,  had  been 
illegally  detained  in  prison  for  several  years,  and  only  re 
covered  their  liberty  on  Clarendon's  dismissal.'2  He  had  too 
much  encouraged  the  hateful  race  of  informers,  though  he 
admits  that  it  had  grown  a  trade  by  which  men  got  money, 
and  that  many  were  committed  on  slight  grounds.3  Thus 
colonel  Hntchinson  died  in  the  close  confinement  of  a  remote 
prison,  far  more  probably  on  account  of  his  share  in  the 
death  of  Charles  I.,  from  which  the  act  of  indemnity  had 
discharged  him,  than  any  just  pretext  of  treason.4  It  was 
difficult  to  obtain  a  habeas  corpus  from  some  of  the  judges 
in  this  reign.  But  to  elude  that  provision  by  removing  men 
out  of  the  kingdom  was  such  an  offence  against  the  constitu 
tion  as  may  be  thought  enough  to  justify  the  impeachment 
of  any  minister. 

2.  The  first  article,  and  certainly  the  most  momentous, 
asserts,  "  That  the  earl  of  Clarendon  hath  designed  a  stand 
ing  army  to  be  raised,  and  to  govern  the  kingdom  thereby, 
and  advised  the  king  to  dissolve  this  present  parliament,  to 
lay  aside  all  thoughts  of  parliaments  for  the  future,  to  gov 
ern  by  a  military  power,  and  to  maintain  the  same  by  free 
quarter  and  contribution."  This  was  prodigiously  exagger 
ated  ;  yet  there  was  some  foundation  for  a  part  of  it.  In 
the  disastrous  summer  of  1667,  when  the  Dutch  fleet  had 
insulted  our  coasts  and  burned  our  ships  in  the  Medway,  the 
exchequer  being  empty,  it  was  proposed  in  council  to  call 
together  immediately  the  parliament,  which  then  stood  pro 
rogued  to  a  day  at  the  distance  of  some  months.  Clarendon, 
who  feared  the  hostility  of  the  house  of  commons  towards 
himself,  and  had  pressed  the  king  to  dissolve  it,  maintained 
that  they  could  not  legally  be  summoned  before  the  day 

i  Ludlow,  iii.  118.  165.  et  post.     Clar-  78,  et  post;  Harris's  Lives,  v.  182,  for  the 

endon's  Life,  290.    Buruet.  226.    (Euvres  proofs  of  this, 

de  Louis  XIV.  ii.  204.  4  Mem.  of  Hutchinson,  303.     It  seems, 

-  Harris's  Lives,  v.  28.      Biogr.    Brit,  however,  that  he  was  suspected  of  some 

art.    HARRINGTON.     Life   of  James,  396.  concern  with  an  intended  i-ising  in  1663, 

Soiners  Tracts,  vii.  530.  534.  though  nothing  was  proved  against  him. 

3  See  Rennet's  Register,  757;    Ralph,  Miscellanea  Auiica,  319. 


CHA.  II.  — 1660-73.   IMPEACHMENT  OF  CLARENDON.     351 

fixed  ;  and,  with  a  strange  inconsistency,  attaching  more  im 
portance  to  the  formalities  of  law  than  to  its  essence,  advised 
that  the  counties  where  the  troops  were  quartered  should 
be  called  upon  to  send  in  provisions,  and  those  where  there 
were  no  troops  to  contribute  money,  which  should  be  abated 
out  of  the  next  taxes.  And  he  admits  that  he  might  have 
used  the  expression  of  raising  contributions,  as  in  the  late 
civil  war.  This  unguarded  and  unwarrantable  language, 
thrown  out  at  the  council-table  where  some  of  his  enemies 
were  sitting,  soon  reached  the  ears  of  the  commons,  and,  min 
gled  up  with  the  usual  misrepresentations  of  faction,  was 
magnified  into  a  charge  of  high-treason.1 

3.  The  eleventh  article  charged  lord  Clarendon  with  hav 
ing  advised  and  effected  the  sale  of  Dunkirk  to  Sale  of 
the  French  king,  being  part  of  his  majesty's  do-  Dunkirk. 
minions,  for  no  greater  value  than  the  ammunition,  artillery, 
and  stores  were  worth.  The  latter  part  is  generally  asserted 
to  be  false.  The  sum  received  is  deemed  the  utmost  that 
Louis  would  have  given,  who  thought  he  had  made  a  close 
bargain.  But  it  is  very  difficult  to  reconcile  what  Clarendon 
asserts  in  his  defence,  and  much  more  at  length  in  his  Life 
(that  the  business  of  Dunkirk  was  entirely  decided,  before 
he  had  anything  to  do  in  it,  by  the  advice  of  Albemarle  and 
Sandwich),  witJi  the  letters  of  d'Estrades,  the  negotiator  in 
this  transaction  on  the  part  of  France.  In  the»e  letters, 
written  at  the  time  of  Louis  XIV.,  Clarendon  certainly 
appears  not  only  as  the  person  chiefly  concerned,  but  as 
representing  himself  almost  the  only  one  of  the  council  fa 
vorable  to  the  measure,  and  having  to  overcome  the  decided 
repugnance  of  Southampton,  Sandwich,  and  Albemarle.2  I 

i  Life  of  Clarendon,  424.  Pepys  says  which  certainly  does  not  tally  with  some 

the  parliament  was  called  together  other  authorities,  that  Dunkirk  had  been 

"  against  the  duke  of  York's  mind  flatly,  so  great  an  object  with  Cromwell,  that  it 

who  did  rather  advise  the  king  to  raise  was  the  stipulated  price  of  the  English 

money  as  he  pleased  :  and  against  the  alliance.  Louis,  however,  was  vexed  at 

chancellor,  who  told  the  king  that  queen  this,  and  determined  to  recover  it  at  any 

Elizabeth  did  do  all  her  business  in  1588  price:  il  est  certain  que  je  ne  pouvois 

without  calling  a  parliament,  and  so  trop  donner  pour  racheter  Dunkerque. 

might  he  do  for  anything  he  saw."  June  He  sent  d'Estrades  accordingly  to  Eng- 

25,  1667.  He  probably  got  this  from  his  land  in  1661,  directing  him  to  make  this 

friend  sir  W.  Coventry.  his  great  object.  Charles  told  the  am- 

-  Kalph.  78,  &c.  The  overture  came  bassador  that  Spain  had  made  him  great 

from  Clarendon,  the  French  having  no  offers,  but  he  would  rather  treat  with 

expectation  of  it.  The  worst  was  that,  France.  Louis  was  delighted  at  this; 

just  before,  he  had  dwelt  in  a  speech  to  and  though  the  sum  ;>sked  was  consider- 

parliament  on  the  importance  of  Dun-  able,  5.000.000  livres.  he  would  not  break 

kirk.  Tliis  was  on  May  19.  1662.  It  off.  but  finally  concluded  the  treaty  for 

appears  by  Louis  XIV. ;s  own  account,  4,000,000,  payable  in  three  years;  nay, 


352  IMPEACHMENT    OF   CLARENDON.  CHAP.  XI. 

cannot  indeed  see  any  other  explanation  than  that  he  mag 
nified  the  obstacles  in  the  way  of  this  treaty,  in  order  to 
obtain  better  terms ;  a  management  not  very  unusual  in  dip- 
lomatical  dealing,  but,  in  the  degree  at  least  to  which  he 
carried  it,  scarcely  reconcilable  with  the  good  faith  we  should 
expect  from  this  minister.  For  the  transaction  itself,  we  can 
hardly  deem  it  honorable  or  politic.  The  expense  of  keeping 
up  Dunkirk,  though  not  trifling,  would  have  been  willingly 
defrayed  by  parliament ;  and  could  not  well  be  pleaded  by  a 
government  which  had  just  encumbered  itself  with  the  use 
less  burden  of  Tangier.  That  its  possession  was  of  no  great 
direct  value  to  England  must  be  confessed  ;  but  it  was  an 
other  question  whether  it  ought  to  have  been  surrendered 
into  the  hands  of  France. 

4.  This  close  connection  with  France  is  indeed  a  great  re 
proach  to  Clarendon's  policy,  and  was  the  spring  of  mischiefs 
to  which  he  contributed,  and  which  he  ought  to  have  fore 
seen.  What  were  the  motives  of  these  strong  professions  of 
attachment  to  the  interests  of  Louis  XIV.  which  he  makes 
in  some  of  his  letters  it  is  difficult  to  say,  since  he  had  un 
doubtedly  an  ancient  prejudice  against  that  nation  and  its 
government.  I  should  incline  to  conjecture  that  his  knowl 
edge  of  the  king's  unsoundness  in  religion  led  him  to  keep 
at  a  distance  from  the  court  of  Spain,  as  being  far  more 
zealous  in  its  popery,  and  more  connected  with  the  Jesuit 
faction,  than  that  of  France;  and  this  possibly  influenced 
him  also  with  respect  to  the  Portuguese  match,  wherein, 
though  not  the  first  adviser,  he  certainly  took  much  interest ; 
an  alliance  as  little  judicious  in  the  outset  as  it  proved  event- 
Solicitation  ualty  fortunate.1  But  the  capital  misdemeanor 
of  French  that  he  committed  in  this  relation  with  France 
was  the  clandestine  solicitation  of  pecuniary  aid 
for  the  king.  He  first  taught  a  lavish  prince  to  seek  the 
wages  of  dependence  in  a  foreign  power,  to  elude  the  control 

saved  500.000  without   its   being   found  gether  correct,  the  king   of  France  did 

out  by  the  English,  for,  a  banker  having  not  fancy  he  had  made  so  bad  a  bargain; 

offered  them  prompt  payment  at  this  dis-  and  indeed,  with  his  projects,  if  he  had 

count,  they  gladly  accepted  it;  but  this  the  money  to  spare,  he  could  not   think 

banker  was  a  person  employed  by  Louis  so.     Compare  the  Memoires  d'Estrades, 

himself,  who  had  the  money  ready,      lie  and  the  supplement  to  the  third  volume 

had  the  greatest  anxiety  about  this  affair;  of  Clarendon  State  Papers.      The  histo- 

for  the  city  of  London  deputed  the  lord-  rians  are  of  no  value,  except  as  they  copy 

mayor  to    offer   any  sum    so  that  Dun-  from  some  of  these  original  testimonies. 
kirk  might    not   be   ali- nated.     (Euvres         J  Life  of  Clarendon,  78.     Life  of  James, 

de  Louis  XIV.  i.  167.     If  this   be   alto-  393. 


CHA.  II.  — 1600-73.     HIS   FAULTS   AS   A  MINISTER.  353 

of  parliament  by  the  help  of  French  money.1  The  purpose 
for  which  this  aid  was  asked,  the  succor  of  Portugal,  might 
be  fair  and  laudable ;  but  the  precedent  was  most  base,  dan 
gerous,  and  abominable.  A  king  who  had  once  tasted  the 
sweets  of  dishonest  and  clandestine  lucre  would,  in  the  words 
of  the  poet,  be  no  more  capable  afterwards  of  abstaining  from 
it  than  a  dog  from  his  greasy  offal. 

These  are  the  errors  of  Clarendon's  political  life  ;  which, 
besides  his  notorious  concurrence  in  all  measures  ™ 

r,  .  Clarendon's 

or  severity  and  restraint  towards  the  non-conform-  faults  as  a 
ists,  tend  to  diminish  our  respect  for  his  memory,  mmister- 
and  to  exclude  his  name  from  that  list  of  great  and  wise 
ministers  where  some  are  willing  to  place  him  near  the  head. 
If  I  may  seem  to  my  readers  less  favorable  to  so  eminent  a 
person  than  common  history  might  warrant,  it  is  at  least  to 
be  said  that  I  have  formed  my  decision  from  his  own  re 
corded  sentiments,  or  from  equally  indisputable  sources  of 
authority.  The  publication  of  his  Life,  that  is,  of  the  his 
tory  of  his  administration,  has  not  contributed  to  his  honor. 
We  find  in  it  little  or  nothing  of  that  attachment  to  the  con 
stitution  for  which  he  had  acquired  credit,  and  some  things 
which  we  must  struggle  hard  to  reconcile  with  his  veracity, 
even  if  the  suppression  of  truth  is  not  to  be  reckoned  an 
impeachment  of  it  in  an  historian.2  But  the  manifest  profli- 

1  See  supplement  to  third  volume  of  from  the  great  duties  of  an  historian  as  a 
Clarendon    State    Papers    for  abundant  moral  blemish  in  his  character.  He  dares 
evidence  of  the  close  connection  between  very  frequently  to  say  what  is  not  true, 
the  courts  of  France  and  England.     The  and  what  he  must  have  known  to  beoth- 
foriner  offered  bribes  to  lord  Clarendon  erwise :  he  does  not  dare  to  say  what  is 
so  frequently  and  unceremoniously,  that  true.     And  it  is  almost  an  aggravation 
one  is  disposed  to  think  he  did  not  show  of  this  reproach  that  he  aimed  to  deceive 
so  much  indignation  at  the  first  overture  posterity,  and  poisoned  at  the  fountain  a 
as  he  ought  to  have  done.     See  p.  1,  4,  stream    from  which  another   generation 
13.     The  aim  of  Louis  was  to  effect  the  was  to  drink.     No  defence  has  ever  been 
match  with  Catherine.  Spain  would  have  set  up  for  the  fidelity  of  Clarendon's  His- 
giveu  a  great  portion  with  any  protestant  tory  ;  nor  can  men  who  have  sifted   the 
princess,  in  order  to  break  it.     Claren-  authentic  materials  entertain  much  dif- 
don  asked,  on  his  master's  account,  for  ference    of  judgment   in    this   respect; 
50,000/.   to  avoid   application   to   parlia-  though,  as  a  monument  of  powerful  abil- 
ment :    p.  4.     The   French  offered  a  se-  ity  and  impressive  eloquence,  it  will  al- 
cret  loan,  or  subsidy  perhaps,  of  2,000,000  ways  be  read  with  that  delight  which  we 
livres  for  the  succor  of  Portugal.     This  receive  from  many  great  historians,  es- 
was  accepted  by  Clarendon  —  p.  15  ;  but  pecially  the  ancient,  independent  of  any 
I  do  not  find  anything  more  about  it.  confidence  in  their  veracity. 

2  As  no  one  who  regards  with  attach-  One  more  instance,  before  we  quit  lord 
ment  the  present  system  of  the  English  Clarendon    forever,    may   here    be   men- 
constitution  can  look  upon  lord  Clareu-  tioned  of  his  disregard  for  truth.     The 
don  as  an  excellent  minister,  or  a  friend  strange  tale  of  a  fruitless  search  after  the 
to  the  soundest  principles  of  civil  and  re-  restoration  for  the  body  of  Charles  I.  is 
ligious  liberty,  so  no  man  whatever  can  well  known.      Lords   Southampton   and 
avoid  considering  his  incessant  deviations  Lindsev.  he  tells  us,  who  had  assisted  at 

VOL.   ii.  23 


354 


CLARENDON'S   FLIGHT 


CHAP.  XI. 


gacy  of  those  who  contributed  most  to  his  ruin,  and  the 
measures  which  the  court  took  soon  afterwards,  have  ren 
dered  his  administration  comparatively  honorable,  and  at 
tached  veneration  to  his  memory.  We  are  unwilling  to 
believe  that  there  was  anything  to  censure  in  a  minister 
whom  Buckingham  persecuted,  and  against  whom  Arlington 
intrigued.1 

An  eminent  characteristic  of  Clarendon  had  been  his  firm- 
iiis  usii-  ness>  caue(l  indeed  by  most  pride  and  obstinacy, 
which  no  circumstances,  no  perils,  seemed  likely 
to  bend.  But  his  spirit  sunk  all  at  once  with  his 
fortune.  Clinging  too  long  to  office,  and  cheating  himself 
against  all  probability  with  a  hope  of  his  master's  kindness 
when  he  had  lost  his  confidence,  he  forgot  that  dignified  phi 
losophy  which  ennobles  a  voluntary  retirement,  that  stern 
courage  which  innocence  ought  to  inspire  ;  and,  hearkening 
to  the  king's  treacherous  counsels,  fled  before  his  enemies 
into  a  foreign  country.  Though  the  impeachment,  at  least 


their  master's  obsequies  in  St.  George's 
chapel  at  Windsor,  were  so  overcome 
with  grief  that  they  could  not  recognize 
the  place  of  interment ;  and  after  several 
vain  attempts  the  search  was  abandoned 
in  despair.  Hist,  of  Rebellion,  vi.  24-4. 
Whatever  motive  the  noble  historian  may 
have  had  for  this  story,  it  is  absolutely 
incredible  that  any  such  ineffectual 
search  was  ever  made.  Nothing  could 
have  been  more  easy  than  to  have  taken 
up  the  pavement  of  the  choir.  But  this 
was  unnecessary.  Some  at  least  of 
the  workmen  employed  must  have  re 
membered  the  place  of  the  vault.  Nor  did 
it  depend  on  them  ;  for  sir  Thomas  Her 
bert,  who  was  present,  had  made  at  the 
time  a  note  of  the  spot,  "just  opposite  the 
eleventh  stall  on  the  king's  side."  Her 
bert  Memoirs.  142.  And  we  find  from 
Pepys's  Diary,  Feb.  26, 1666,  that"  he  was 
shown  at  Windsor  where  the  late  king 
was  buried,  and  king  Henry  VIII.,  and 
my  lady  Seymour."  In  which  spot,  as  is 
well  known,  the  royal  body  has  twice 
been  found,  once  in  the  reign  of  Anne, 
and  again  in  1813.  [It  has  been  some 
times  suggested  that  Charles  II.,  having 
received  a  large  sum  of  money  from  par 
liament  towards  his  father's  funeral, 
chose  to  have  it  believed  that  the  body 
could  not  be  found.  But  the  vote  of 
70.0CKM.  by  the  commons  for  this  purpose 
was  on  Jan.  30,  1678,  long  after  the  pre 
tended  search  which  Clarendon  has  men 
tioned.  Wren  was  directed  to  make  a  de 


sign  for  a  monument,  which  is  in  All 
Souls'  College :  biit  no  further  steps  were 
taken.  Ellis's  Letters,  1st  series,  vol.  iii. 
p.  329.  It  seems  very  unlikely  that  the 
king  ever  got  the  money  which  had  been 
voted,  and  the  next  parliaments  were 
not  in  a  temper  to  repeat  the  offer. — 
1845.] 

i  The  tenor  of  Clarendon's  life  and 
writings  almost  forbids  any  surmise  of 
pecuniary  corruption.  Yet  this  is  insinu 
ated  byPepys.on  the  authority  of  Evelyn, 
April  27,  and  May  16,  1667.  But  the 
one  was  gossiping,  though  shrewd  ;  and 
the  other  feeble,  though  accomplished. 
Lord  Dartmouth,  who  lived  in  the  next 
age,  and  whose  splenetic  humor  makes 
him  no  good  witness  against  anybody, 
charges  him  with  receiving  bribes  from 
the  main  instruments  and  promoters  of 
the  late  troubles,  and  those  who  had 
plundered  the  royalists,  which  enabled 
him  to  build  his  great  mansion  in  Picca 
dilly  ;  asserting  that  it  was  full  of  pic 
tures  belonging  to  families  who  had  been 
despoiled  of  them.  "  And  whoever  had 
a  mind  to  see  what  great  families  had 
been  plundered  during  the  civil  war  might 
find  some  remains  either  at  Clarendon- 
house  or  at  Cornbury.;)  Note  on  Buriiet, 
88. 

The  character  of  Clarendon  as  a  min 
ister  is  fairly  and  judiciously  drawn  by 
Macpherson,  Hist,  of  England,  98 ;  a 
work  by  no  means  so  full  of  a  tory  spirit 
as  has  been  supposed. 


CHA.  II.  — 1600-73.         AXD   BANISHMENT.  355 

in  the  point  of  high-treason,  cannot  be  defended,  it  is  impos 
sible  to  deny  that  the  act  of  banishment,  under  the  and  conge_ 
circumstances  of  his  flight,  was  capable,  in  the  quent  ban- 
main,  of  full  justification.  In  an  ordinary  criminal  lshmeut- 
suit,  a  process  of  outlawry  goes  against  the  accused  who  flies 
from  justice  ;  and  his  neglect  to  appear  within  a  given  time 
is  equivalent,  in  cases  of  treason  or  felony,  to  a  conviction  of 
the  offence  ;  can  it  be  complained  of,  that  a  minister  of  state, 
who  dares  not  confront  a  parliamentary  impeachment,  should 
be  visited  with  an  analogous  penalty  ?  But,  whatever  in 
justice  and  violence  may  be  found  in  this  prosecution,  it 
established  forever  the  right  of  impeachment,  which  the  dis 
credit  into  which  the  long  parliament  had  fallen  exposed  to 
some  hazard  ;  the  strong  abettors  of  prerogative,  such  as 
Clarendon  himself,  being  inclined  to  dispute  this  responsibil 
ity  of  the  king's  advisers  to  parliament.  The  commons  had, 
in  the  preceding  session,  sent  up  an  impeachment  against 
lord  Mordaunt,  upon  charges  of  so  little  public  moment,  that 
they  may  be  suspected  of  having  chiefly  had  in  view  the 
assertion  of  this  important  privilege.1  It  was  never  called 
in  question  from  this  time ;  and  indeed  they  took  care  during 
the  remainder  of  this  reign  that  it  should  not  again  be  en 
dangered  by  a  paucity  of  precedents.2 

1  Parl.  Hist.  347.  regard  to  the  liberty  of  the  subject ;  and 

2  The  lords  refused  to  commit  the  earl  from  this  time  we  do  not  find  the  vague 
of  Clarendon  on  a  general  impeachment  and   unintelligible  accusations,  whether 
of  high-treason  ;     and,   in  a  conference  of  treason  or  misdemeanor,  so  usual  in 
with  the  lower  house,  denied  the  author-  former  proceedings  of  parliament.     Parl. 
ity  of  the  precedent  in  Strafford's  case,  Hist.  387.    A  protest  was  signed  by  Buck- 
which  was  pressed  upon  them.     It  is  re-  inghana,  Albemarle,  Bristol,   Arlington, 
markable  that  the  managers  of  this  con-  and    others    of    their    party,   including 
ference  for  the  commons  vindicated  the  three  bishops  (Cosins.  Croft,  find  another), 
first  proceedings  of  the  long  parliament,  against  the  refusal  of  their  house  to  com- 
which  shows    a    considerable    change  in  mit  Clarendon  upon  the  general  charge, 
their  tone  since  1661.    They  do  not.  how-  A  few,  on  the  other  hand,  of  whom  Hollis 
ever,  seem  to  have  urged  —  what  is  an  is  the  only  remarkable  name,  protested 
apparent    distinction    between    the    two  against  the  bill  of  banishment, 
precedents  —  that    the    commitment   of         ''The  most  fatal  blow"  (says  James) 
Strafford  was  on  a  verbal  request  of  Pym  "  the  king  gave  himself  to  his  power  and 
in  the  name  of  the  commons,  without  al-  prerogative  was  when  he  sought  aid  from 
leging  any  special  matter  of  treason,  and  the  house  of  commons  to  destroy  the  earl 
consequently  irregular  and  illegal ;  while  of  Clarendon :  by  that  he  put  that  house 
the  16th  article  of  Clarendon's  impeach-  again  in  mind  of  their  impeaching  privi- 
ment   charges  him   with  betraying  the  lege,  which  had  been  wrested  out  of  their 
king's  counsels   to    his  enemies  ;  which,  hands  by  the  restoration  :  and  when  min- 
however  untrue,  evidently  amounted  to  isters  found  they  were  like  to  be  left  to 
treason  within    the   statute    of  Edward  the  censure  of  parliament,  it  made  them 
III.;  so  that  the  objection  of  the  lords  have  a  greater  attention  to  court  an  in- 
extended    to    committing    any    one   for  terest  there  than  to  pursue  that  of  their 
treason  upon  impeachment  without  all  princes,  from  whom  they  hoped  not  for 
the  particularity  required  in  an  indict-  so  sure  a  support.'5     Life  of  James,  593. 
ment.    This  showed  a  very  commendable        The  king,  it  is  said,  came  rather  slowly 


356  CABAL   MINISTRY.  CHAP.  XI. 

The  period  between  the  fall  of  Clarendon  in  16G7  and  the 
commencement  of  lord  Danby's  administration  in  1G73  is 
generally  reckoned  one  of  the  most  disgraceful  in  the  annals 
Cabal  of  our  monarchy.  This  was  the  age  of  what  is 

ministry.  usually  denominated  the  Cabal  administration, 
from  the  five  initial  letters  of  sir  Thomas  Clifford,  first 
commissioner  of  the  treasury,  afterwards  lord  Clifford  and 
hijih-treasurer  ;  the  earl  of  Arlington,  secretary  of  state  ; 
the  duke  of  Buckingham  ;  lord  Ashley,  chancellor  of  the 
exchequer,  afterwards  earl  of  Shaftesbury  and  lord  chan 
cellor  ;  and,  lastly,  the  duke  of  Lauderdale.  Yet,  though 
the  counsels  of  these  persons  soon  became  ex- 

Scheme  of  1  .    .  "•  i  i        •  i 

comprehen-  tremcly  pernicious  and  dishonorable,  it  must  be 
a(lmilted  that  the  first  measures  after  the  banish 
ment  of  Clarendon,  both  in  domestic  and  foreign 
policy,  were  highly  praiseworthy.  Bridgeman,  who  suc 
ceeded  the  late  chancellor  in  the  custody  of  the  great  seal, 
with  the  assistance  of  chief  baron  Hale  and  bishop  Wilkins, 
and  at  the  instigation  of  Buckingham,  who,  careless  about 
every  religion,  was  from  humanity  or  politic  motives  friendly 
to  the  indulgence  of  all,  laid  the  foundations  of  a  treaty  with 
the  non-conformists,  on  the  basis  of  a  comprehension  for  the 
presbyterians,  and  a  toleration  for  the  rest.1  They  had 
nearly  come,  it  is  said,  to  terms  of  agreement,  so  that  it  was 
thought  time  to  intimate  their  design  in  a  speech  from  the 
throne.  But  the  spirit  of  1662  was  still  too  powerful  in  the 
commons  ;  and  the  friends  of  Clarendon,  whose  administra 
tion  this  change  of  counsels  seemed  to  reproach,  taking  a 
warm  part  against  all  indulgence,  a  motion,  that  the  king  be 
desired  to  send  for  such  persons  as  he  should  think  fit  to 
make  proposals  to  him  in  order  to  the  uniting  of  his  protes- 
tant  subjects,  was  negatived  by  176  to  70.2  They  proceeded, 

into  the  measure  of  impeachment ;   but  their  support  of  Clarendon.    Burnet,  ibid, 

became  afterwards  so  eager  as  to  give  the  Pepys's  Diary,  21st  Dec.  1667.     And  he 

attorney -general.  Finch,  positive  orders  had  also  deeper  motives, 

to  be  active  in  it,  observing  him  to  be  2  Parl.  Hist.  421.     Ralph,  170.     Carte's 

silent.     Carte's  Ormond,  ii.  353.     Buck-  Life  of  Ormond,  ii.  362.     Sir  Thomas  Lit- 

ingham  had  made  the  -king  great  prom-  tleton  spoke  in  favor  of  the  comprehen- 

ises  of  what  the  commons  would  do,  in  sion,  as  did  Seymour  and  Waller ;  all  of 

case  he  would  sacrifice  Clarendon.  them  enemies  of  Clarendon,  and  probably 

i  Kennet,  293.  300.     Burnet.     Baxter,  connected  with  the  Buckingham  faction: 

23.     The  design  was  to  act  on  the  prin-  but  the  church  party  was  much  too  strong 

ciple  of  the  declaration  of  1600,  so  that  for  them.     Pepys  says  the  commons  were 

presbyterian  ordinations  should  pass  sub  furious  against  the  project ;  it  was  said 

modo.     Tillotson   and   Stillingfleet   were  that  whoever  proposed  new  laws  about 

concerned  in  it.     The  king  was  at   this  religion  must  do  it  with  a  rope  about  his 

time  exasperated  against  the  bishops  for  neck.     Jan.  10,  1668.     This  is  the  first 


CHA.  II. -1660-73.  TRIPLE  ALLIANCE.  357 

by  almost  an  equal  majority,  to  continue  the  bill  of  16G4,  for 
suppressing  seditious  conventicles  ;  which  failed,  however, 
for  the  present,  in  consequence  of  the  sudden  prorogation.1 

But  whatever  difference  of  opinion  might  at  that  time 
prevail  with  respect  to  this  tolerant  disposition  of  Triple 
the  new  government,  there  was  none  as  to  their  alliance. 
great  measure  in  external  policy,  the  triple  alliance  with 
Holland  and  Sweden.  A  considerable  and  pretty  sudden 
change  had  taken  place  in  the  temper  of  the  English  people 
towards  France.  Though  the  discordance  of  national  char 
acter,  and  the  dislike  that  seems  natural  to  neighbors,  as  well 
as  in  some  measure  the  recollections  of  their  ancient  hostility, 
had  at  all  times  kept  up  a  certain  ill-will  between  the  two,  it 
is  manifest  that  before  the  reign  of  Charles  II.  there  was  not 
that  antipathy  and  inveterate  enmity  towards  the  French  in 
general  which  it  has  since  been  deemed  an  act  of  patriotism 
to  profess.  The  national  prejudices,  from  the  accession  of 
Elizabeth  to  the  restoration,  ran  far  more  against  Spain  ; 
and  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  apprehensions  of  that  am 
bitious  monarchy,  which  had  been  very  just  in  the  age  of 
Philip  II.,  should  have  lasted  longer  than  its  ability  or  incli 
nation  to  molest  us.  But  the  rapid  declension  of  Spain  after 
the  peace  of  the  Pyrenees,  and  the  towering  ambition  of 
Louis  XIV.,  master  of  a  kingdom  intrinsically  so  much  more 
formidable  than  its  rival,  manifested  that  the  balance  of 
power  in  Europe,  and  our  own  immediate  security,  demanded 
a  steady  opposition  to  the  aggrandizement  of  one  monarchy, 
and  a  regard  to  the  preservation  of  the  other.  These  indeed 
were  rather  considerations  for  statesmen  than  for  the  people ; 
but  Louis  was  become  unpopular  both  by  his  acquisition  of 
Dunkirk  at  the  expense,  as  it  was  thought,  of  our  honor,  and 
much  more  deservedly  by  his  shuffling  conduct  in  the  Dutch 
war,  and  union  in  it  with  our  adversaries.  Nothing,  there 
fore,  gave  greater  satisfaction  in  England  than  the  triple 
alliance,  and  consequent  peace  of  Aix  la  Chapelle,  which 
saved  the  Spanish  Netherlands  from  absolute  conquest, 
though  not  without  important  sacrifices/2 

instance  of  a  triumph  obtained   by  the  l  Parl.  Hist.  422. 

church  over  the  crown  in  the  house  of  2  France     retained     Lille,      Tournay, 

commons.     Ralph  observes  upon  it,  "  It  Douay,  Charleroi,  and  other  places,  by 

is  not  for  nought  that  the  words  church  the    treaty.     The   allies   were   surprised, 

and  state  are  so  often  coupled  together,  and  not  pleased,  at  the  choice  Spain  made 

anil     that     the    first    has    so    insolently  of  yielding  these  towns  in  order  to  save 

usurpe  1  the  precedency  of  the  last."  Fraiiche   Comte.      Temple's  Letters.  97- 


358  INTRIGUE   WITH  FRANCE.  CHAP.  XL 

Charles  himself  meanwhile  by  no  means  partook  in  this 
intrigue  common  jealousy  of  France.  He  had,  from  the 
with°  time  of  his  restoration,  entered  into  close  relations 

with  that  power,  which  a  short  period  of  hostility 
had  interrupted  without  leaving  any  resentment  in  his  mind. 
It  is  now  known  that,  while  his  minister  was  negotiating  at 
the  Hague  for  the  triple  alliance,  he  had  made  overtures  for 
a  clandestine  treaty  with  Louis,  through  his  sister  the  duchess 
of  Orleans,  the  Duke  of  Buckingham,  and  the  -French  am 
bassador  Rouvigny.1  As  the  king  of  France  was  at  first 
backward  in  meeting  these  advances,  and  the  letters  pub 
lished  in  regard  to  them  are  very  few,  we  do  not  find  any 
precise  object  expressed  beyond  a  close  and  intimate  friend 
ship.  But  a  few  words  in  a  memorial  of  Rouvigny  to  Louis 
XIV.  seem  to  let  us  into  the  secret  of  the  real  purpose. 
"  The  duke  of  York,"  he  says,  "  wishes  much  for  this  union  ; 
the  duke  of  Buckingham  the  same  :  they  use  no  art,  but  say 
that  nothing  else  can  reestablish  the  affairs  of  this  court."  2 

Charles  JI.  was  not  of  a  temperament  to  desire  arbitrary 
Kin  •§  de-  Power?  either  through  haughtiness  and  conceit  of 
sii-eSto  be°  his  station,  which  he  did  not  greatly  display,  or 
absolute.  through  the  love  of  taking  into  his  own  hands  the 
direction  of  public  affairs,  about  which  he  was  in  general 
pretty  indifferent.  He  did  not  wish,  as  he  told  lord  Essex, 
to  sit  like  a  Turkish  sultan,  and  sentence  men  to  the  bow 
string,  but  could  not  bear  that  a  set  of  fellows  should  inquire 
into  his  conduct.3  His  aim,  in  fact,  was  liberty  rather  than 
power  ;  it  was  that  immunity  from  control  and  censure  in 
which  men  of  his  character  place  a  great  part  of  their  happi 
ness.  For  some  years  he  had  cared  probably  very  little 
about  enhancing  his  prerogative,  content  with  the  loyalty, 
though  not  quite  with  the  liberality,  of  his  parliament.  And 
had  he  not  been  drawn,  against  his  better  judgment,  into  the 
war  with  Holland,  this  harmony  might  perhaps  have  been 
protracted  a  good  deal  longer.  But  the  vast  expenditure  of 
that  war,  producing  little  or  no  decisive  success,  and  coming 

In  fact,  they  were  not  on  good  terms  with  ministers  on  his  return  from  concluding 

that  power ;  she  had  even  a  project,  out  the  triple  alliance  :  Clifford  said  to  a  friend, 

of  spite  to  Holland,  of  giving  up  the  Neth-  "Well,   for  all    this  noise,  we  must   yet 

erlauds  entirely  to  1'rance,  in  exchange  have  another  war  with  the  Dutch  before 

for  llousillon,  but  thought  better  of  it  on  it  be  long."     Temple's  Letters,  123. 

cooler  reflection.  '-  Dairy m pie.  ii.  12. 

1  Dalryinple,  ii.  5,  et  post.    Temple  was  3  Buruet. 
not  treated  very  favorably  by  most  of  the 


CHA.  II.  — 1000-73.     DISCOXTEXT   OF  THE  KIXG.  359 

unfortunately  at  a  time  when  trade  was  not  very  thriving, 
and  when  rents  had  considerably  fallen,  exasperated  all  men 
against  the  prodigality  of  the  court,  to  which  they  might 
justly  ascribe  part  of  their  burdens,  and,  with  the  usual  mis 
calculations,  believed  that  much  more  of  them  was  due. 
Hence  the  bill  appointing  commissioners  of  public  account, 
so  ungrateful  to  the  king,  whose  personal  reputation  it  was 
likely  to  affect,  and  whose  favorite  excesses  it  might  tend  to 
restrain. 

He  was  almost  equally  provoked  by  the  license  of  his 
people's  tongues.  A  court  like  that  of  Charles  is  the  natural 
topic  of  the  idle,  as  well  as  the  censorious.  An  admin 
istration  so  ill  conducted  could  not  escape  the  remarks 
of  a  well-conducted  and  intelligent  city.  There  was  one 
method  of  putting  an  end  to  these  impertinent  comments,  or 
of  rendering  them  innoxious  ;  but  it  was  the  last  which  he 
would  have  adopted.  Clarendon  informs  us  that,  the  king 
one  day  complaining  of  the  freedom,  as  to  political  conversa 
tion,  taken  in  coffee-houses,  he  recommended  either  that  all 
persons  should  be  forbidden  by  proclamation  to  resort  to 
them,  or  that  spies  should  be  placed  in  them  to  give  informa 
tion  against  seditious  speakers.1  The  king,  he  says,  liked 
both  expedients,  but  thought  it  unfair  to  have  recourse  to  the 
latter  till  the  former  had  given  fair  warning,  and  directed 
him  to  propose  it  to  the  council ;  but  here,  sir  William 
Coventry  objecting,  the  king  was  induced  to  abandon  the 
measure,  much  to  Clarendon's  disappointment,  though  it 
probably  saved  him  an  additional  article  in  his  impeachment. 
The  unconstitutional  and  arbitrary  tenor  of  this  great  minis 
ter's  notions  of  government  is  strongly  displayed  in  this  little 
anecdote.  Coventry  was  an  enlightened  and,  for  that  age,  an 
upright  man,  whose  enmity  Clarendon  brought  on  himself  by 
a  marked  jealousy  of  his  abilities  in  council. 

Those  who  stood  nearest  to  the  king  were  not  backward 
to  imitate  his  discontent  at  the  privileges  of  his  people  and 
their  representatives.  The  language  of  courtiers  and  court 
ladies  is  always  intolerable  to  honest  men,  especially  that  of 
such  courtiers  as  surrounded  the  throne  of  Charles  II.  It  is 
worst  of  all  amidst  public  calamities,  such  as  pressed  very 
closely  on  one  another  in  a  part  of  his  reign  —  the  awful 
pestilence  of  1GG5,  the  still  more  ruinous  fire  of  1GG6,  the 

i  Life  of  Clarendou,  357. 


360  CHARGES   AGAINST   THE  PAPISTS.         CHAP.  XL 

fleet  burned  by  the  Dutch  in  the  Medway  next  summer. 
No  one  could  reproach  the  king  for  outward  inactivity  or 
indifference  during  the  great  fire.  But  there  were  some,  as 
Clarendon  tells  us,  who  presumed  to  assure  him  "  that  this 
was  the  greatest  blessing  that  God  had  ever  conferred  on 
him,  his  restoration  only  excepted  ;  for  the  walls  and  gates 
being  now  burned  and  thrown  down  of  that  rebellious  city, 
which  was  always  an  enemy  to  the  crown,  his  majesty  would 
never  suffer  them  to  repair  and  build  them  up  again,  to  be  a 
bit  in  his  mouth  and  a  bridle  upon  his  neck ;  but  would  keep 
all  open,  that  his  troops  might  enter  upon  them  whenever 
he  thought  it  necessary  for  his  service,  there  being  no  other 
way  to  govern  that  rude  multitude  but  by  force."  1  This 
kind  of  discourse,  he  goes  on  to  say,  did  not  please  the  king. 
But  here  we  may  venture  to  doubt  his  testimony  ;  or,  if  the 
natural  good  temper  of  Charles  prevented  him  from  taking 
pleasure  in  such  atrocious  congratulations,  we  may  be  sure 
that  he  was  not  sorry  to  think  the  city  more  in  his  power. 

It  seems  probable  that  this  loose  and  profligate  way  of 
speaking  gave  rise,  in  a  great  degree,  to  the  suspicion  that 
the  city  had  been  purposely  burned  by  those  who  were  more 
enemies  to  religion  and  liberty  than  to  the  court.  The 
papists  stood  ready  to  bear  the  infamy  of  every  unproved 
crime ;  and  a  committee  of  the  house  of  commons  collected 
evidence  enough  for  those  who  were  already  convinced  that 
London  had  been  burned  by  that  obnoxious  sect.  Though 
the  house  did  not  proceed  farther,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
the  inquiry  contributed  to  produce  that  inveterate  distrust  of 
the  court,  whose  connections  with  the  popish  faction  were 
half  known,  half  conjectured,  which  gave  from  this  time  an 
entirely  new  complexion  to  the  parliament.  Prejudiced  as 
the  commons  were,  they  could  hardly  have  imagined  the 
catholics  to  have  burned  the  city  out  of  mere  malevolence, 
but  must  have  attributed  the  crime  to  some  far-spreading 
plan  of  subverting  the  established  constitution.2 

1  Life  of  Clarendon,  355.  their  quarters;    and   for  this  the  3d  of 

2  State   Trials,  vi.    807.       One   of   the  September  following  was  fixed  upon  as  a 
oddest    things   connected   with   this  fire  lucky  day.     This   is   undoubtedly  to  be 
was,   that   some  persons   of  the  fanatic  read  in  the  London  Gazette  for  April  30, 
party  had  been  hanged  in  April,  for  a  1666 ;  and  it  is  equally  certain  that  the 
conspiracy  to  surprise  the  Tower,  murder  city  was  in  flames  on  the  3d  of  Septem- 
the  duke  of  Albeniarle  and  others,  and  ber.     But,  though  the  coincidence  is  cu- 
then  declare  for  an  equal  division  of  lands,  rious.  it  would  be  very  weak  to  think  it 
&c.     In  order  to  effect  this,  the  city  was  more  than  a  coincidence,  for   the   same 
to  be  fired,  and  the  guards  secured  in  reason  as  applies  to  the  suspicion  which 


CHA.  II.  — 1G60-73.      FEARS   CONCERNING  THE  ARMY.  3G1 

The  retention  of  the  king's  guards  had  excited  some  jeal 
ousy,  though  no  complaints  seem  to  have  been  made  of  it  in 
parliament ;  but  the  sudden  levy  of  a  considerable  force  in 
1GG7,  however  founded  upon  a  very  plausible  pretext  from 
the  circumstances  of  the  war,  lending  credit  to  these  dark 
surmises  of  the  court's  sinister  designs,  gave  much  greater 
alarm.  The  commons,  summoned  together  in  July,  instantly 
addressed  the  king  to  disband  his  army  as  soon  as  the  peace 
should  be  made.  We  learn  from  the  duke  of  York's  private 
memoirs,  that  some  of  those  who  were  most  respected  for 
their  ancient  attachment  to  liberty,  deemed  it  in  jeopardy  at 
this  crisis.  The  earls  of  Northumberland  and  Leicester,  lord 
Hollis,  Mr.  Pierpoint,  and  others  of  the  old  parliamentary 
party,  met  to  take  measures  together.  The  first  of  these  told 
the  duke  of  York  that  the  nation  would  not  be  satisfied  with 
the  removal  of  the  chancellor,  unless  the  guards  were  dis 
banded,  and  several  other  grievances  redressed.  The  duke 
bade  him  be  cautious  what  he  said  lest  he  should  be  obliged 
to  inform  the  king  ;  but  Northumberland  replied  that  it  was 
his  intention  to  repeat  the  same  to  the  king,  which  he  did  ac 
cordingly  the  next  day.1 

This  change  in  public  sentiment  gave  warning  to  Charles 
that  he  could  not  expect  to  reign  with  as  little  trouble  as  he 
had  hitherto  experienced ;  and  doubtless  the  recollection  of 
liis  father's  history  did  not  contribute  to  cherish  the  love  he 
sometimes  pretended  for  parliaments.2  His  brother,  more 
reflecting,  and  more  impatient  of  restraint  on  royal  authority, 
saw  with  still  greater  clearness  than  the  king  that  they  could 
only  keep  the  prerogative  at  its  desired  height  by  means  of 
intimidation.  A  regular  army  was  indispensable ;  but  to 
keep  up  an  army  in  spite  of  parliament,  or  to  raise  money 

the  catholics  incurred  —  that  the  mere  he  had  done  already  in  the  matter  of  ac- 

destruction  of  the  city  could  not  have  counts.     For  if  it  be  not  necessary,  it  is  a 

been  the  object  of  any  party,  and  that  king's  care  and  happiness  to  content  his 

nothing  was  attempted  to  manifest  any  people.     I  doubt,  as  men  will  never  part 

further  design.  willingly  with  their  money,  unless  they 

1  Macpherson's  Extracts,  38,  49.     Life  be  well  persuaded  it  will  be  employed  di- 
of  James.  426.  rectly  to  those  ends  for  which  they  gave 

2  [  ••  I  am   sorry,"  says  Temple,  very  it,  so  they  will  never  be  satisfied  with  a 
wisely    and    virtuously,    "  his    majesty  government,    unless    they   see    men   are 
should  meet  with  anything   he  did  not  chosen  into  offices  and  employments  by 
look  for  at  the  opening  of  this  session  of  being  fit   for   them,    continued    for  dis- 
parliament ;  but  confess  I  do  not  see  why  charging    them   well,   rewarded  for   ex- 
his  majesty  should  [not]  not  only  con-  traordiuary  merit,  and  punished  for  re 
sent,  but  encourage  any  inquiries  or  dis-  rnarkable faults.'5    March  2,  1668.    Cour- 
quisitions  they  desire  to  make  into  the  tenay's  Lite  of  Temple,  vol.  ii.  p.  90. — 
miscarriages  of  the  late  war.  as  well  as  1845.] 


362  DESIRE   TO  ADVANCE  POPERY.  CHAP.  XL 

for  its  support  without  parliament,  was  a  very  difficult  under 
taking.  It  seemed  necessary  to  call  in  a  more  powerful  arm 
than  their  own ;  and,  by  establishing  the  closest  union  with 
the  king  of  France,  to  obtain  either  military  or  pecuniary 
succors  from  him,  as  circumstances  might  demand.  But 
there  was  another  and  not  less  imperious  motive  for  a  secret 
treaty.  The  king,  as  has  been  said,  though  little  likely,  from 
the  tenor  of  his  life,  to  feel  very  strong  and  lasting  impres 
sions  of  religion,  had  at  times  a  desire  to  testify  publicly  his 
adherence  to  the  Romish  communion.  The  duke  of  York 
had  come  more  gradually  to  change  the  faith  in  which  he 
was  educated.  He  describes  it  as  the  result  of  patient  and 
anxious  inquiry  ;  nor  would  it  be  possible  therefore  to  fix  a 
precise  date  for  his  conversion,  which  seems  to  have  been  not 
fully  accomplished  till  after  the  restoration.1  He  however 
continued  in  conformity  to  the  church  of  England,  till,  on  dis 
covering  that  the  catholic  religion  exacted  an  outward  com 
munion,  which  he  had  fancied  not  indispensable,  he  became 
more  uneasy  at  the  restraint  that  policy  imposed  on  him. 
This  led  to  a  conversation  with  the  king,  of  whose  private 
opinions  and  disposition  to  declare  them  he  was  probably  in 
formed,  and  to  a  close  union  with  Cliiford  and  Arlington, 
from  whom  he  had  stood  aloof  on  account  of  their  animosity 
against  Clarendon.  The  king  and  duke  held  a  consulta 
tion  with  those  two  ministers,  and  with  lord  Arundel  of 
Wardour,  on  the  25th  of  January,  1GG9,  to  discuss  the  ways 
and  methods  fit  to  be  taken  for  the  advancement  of  the 
catholic  religion  in  these  kingdoms.  The  king  spoke  ear 
nestly,  and  with  tears  in  his  eyes.  After  a  long  deliberation 
it  was  agreed  that  there  was  no  better  way  to  accomplish 
this  purpose  than  through  France,  the  house  of  Austria  being 
in  no  condition  to  give  any  assistance.2 

i  He  tells  us  himself  that  it  began  by  and  he  was  confident,  he  said,  that  who- 

his  reading  a  book  written  by  a  learned  soever  reads  those  two  books,  with  atteii- 

bishop  of  the  church  of  England  to  clear  tion  and  without  prejudice,  would  be  of 

her  from  schism  in  leaving  the  Roman  the  same  opinion.     Life  of  James,  i.  629, 

communion,  which  had  a  contrary  effect  The  duchess  of  York  embraced  the  same 

on  him;    especially   when,   at   the    said  creed  as  her  husband,  and,  as  he  tells  us, 

bishop's  desire,  he  read  an  answer  to  it.  without  knowledge  of  his  sentiments,  but 

This   made   him    inquisitive    about    the  one  year  before  her  death  in  1670.     She 

grounds  and  manner  of  the  Reformation,  left  a  paper  at  her  death,  containing  the 

After  his  return,   Hey lia's  History  of  the  reasons  for  her  change.     See  it  in  Kennet, 

Reformation,  and  the  preface  to  Hooker's  320.     It  is  plain  that  she,  as  well  as  the 

Ecclesiastical     Polity,    thoroughly    con-  duke,  had  been  influenced  by  the   Ro- 

vinced   him  that  neither  the  church  of  inaumug  tendency  of  some  Anglican  di- 

Englaud,  nor  Calvin,  nor  any  of  the  re-  vines, 

formers,  had  power  to  do  what  they  did  ;  -  Macpherson,  50.     Life  of  James,  414. 


CHA.  II.  — 1G60-73.      SECRET   TREATY   WITH  FRANCE.          363 

The  famous  secret  treaty,  which,  though  believed  on  pretty 
good  evidence  not  long  after  the  time,  was  first  secret  treaty 
actually  brought  to  light  by  Dalrymple  about  half  of  167°- 
a  century  since,  began  to  be  negotiated  very  soon  after  this 
consultation.1  TVe  find  allusions  to  the  king's  projects  in  one 
of  his  letters  to  the  duchess  of  Orleans,  dated  22d  March, 
1669.'2  In  another,  of  June  G,  the  methods  he 
was  adopting  to  secure  himself  in  this  perilous 
juncture  appear.  He  was  to  fortify  Plymouth,  Hull,  and 
Portsmouth,  and  to  place  them  in  trusty  hands.  The  fieet 
was  under  the  duke,  as  lord  admiral;  the  guards  and  their 
officers  were  thought  in  general  well  affected;  3  but  his  great 
reliance  was  on  the  most  Christian  king.  He  stipulated  for 
200,000/.  annually,  and  for  the  aid  of  GOOD  French  troops.4 
In  return  for  such  important  succor,  Charles  undertook  to 
serve  his  ally's  ambition  and  wounded  pride  against  the 
United  Provinces.  These,  when  conquered  by  the  French 
arms,  with  the  cooperation  of  an  English  navy,  were  already 
shared  by  the  royal  conspirators.  A  part  of  Zealand  fell  to 
the  lot  of  England,  the  remainder  of  the  Seven  Provinces 
to  France,  with  an  understanding  that  some  compensation 
should  be  made  to  the  prince  of  Orange.  In  the  event  of 

i  De  Witt  was  apprised  of  the  intrigue  (Euvres  de  Louis  XIV.,  vi.  476.  It  is  sin- 
between  France  and  England  as  early  as  gular  that  Hume  should  have  slighted  so 
April,  1669,  through  a  Swedish  agent  at  well-authenticated  a  fact,  even  before 
Paris.  Temple,  179  Temple  himself,  in  Dalrymple's  publication  of  the  treaty; 
the  course  of  that  year,  became  convinced  but  I  suppose  he  had  never  heard  of  Pri- 
that  the  king's  views  were  not  those  of  mi's  book  [Yet  it  had  been  quoted  by 
his  people,  and  reflects  severely  on  his  Bolingbroke.  Dissertation  on  Parties.  Let- 
conduct  in  a  letter.  December  24,1669,  ter  iv..  who  alludes  also  to  "  other  proofs, 
S.  2<ii;.  In  September,  1670,  on  his  sud-  which  have  not  seen  the  light."  And,  in 
en  recall  from  the  Hague.  De  Witt  told  the  '  Letters  on  the  Study  of  History,' 
him  liis  suspicions  of  a  clandestine  treaty  :  Lett,  vii.,  he  is  rather  more  explicit  abo'ut 
241.  He  was  received  on  his  return  "  the  private  relations  I  have  read  for- 
coldly  by  Arlington,  and  almost  with  merly,  drawn  up  by  those  who  were  no 
rudeness  by  Clifford:  244.  They  knew  enemies  to  such  designs,  and  on  the  au- 
he  would  never  concur  in  the  new  proj-  thority  of  those  who  were  parties  to 
ects.  But  in  1682,  during  one  of  the  them."]  The  original  treaty  has  lately 
intervals  when  Charles  was  playing  false  been  published  by  Dr.  Liugard,  from  lord 
with  his  brother  Louis,  the  latter,  in  re-  Clifford's  cabinet.  [Dalrymple  had  only 
venge,  let  an  abbe  Primi,  in  a  history  of  given  a  rough  draught  from  the  depot  at 
the  Dutch  war,  publish  an  account  of  the  Versailles,  drawn  by  sir  Richard  Bealing 
whole  secret  treaty,  under  the  name  of  for  the  French  court.  The  variations  are 
Count  de  St.  Majolo.  This  book  was  im-  not  very  material.] 
mediately  suppressed  at  the  instance  of  -  Dalrymple.  ii.  22. 
the  English  ambassador;  and  Primi  was  3  Dalrymple,  23.  Life  of  James,  442. 
sent  for  a  short  time  to  the  Bastile.  But  4  The  tenor  of  the  article  leads  me  to 
a  pamphlet,  published  in  London,  just  conclude  that  these  troops  were  to  be 
after  the  revolution,  contains  extracts  lauded  in  England  at  all  events,  in  order 
from  it.  Dalrymple,  ii.  80.  Somers  to  secure  the  public  tranquillity,  without 
Tracts,  viii.  13  State  Tracts,  temp.  W.  waiting  for  any  disturbance. 
111.,  vol.  i.  p.  1.  llarl.  Misc.,  ii.  387. 


364  DIFFERENCES  AS    TO   EXECUTION          CHAP.  XL 

any  new  rights  to  the  Spanish  monarchy  accruing  to  the 
most  Christian  king,  as  it  is  worded  (that  is,  on  the  death  of 
the  king  of  Spain,  a  sickly  child),  it  was  agreed  that  Eng 
land  should  assist  him  with  all  her  force  by  sea  and  land,  but 
at  his  own  expense ;  and  should  obtain  not  only  Ostend  and 
Minorca,  but,  as  far  as  the  king  of  France  could  contribute 
to  it,  such  parts  of  Spanish  America  as  she  should  choose  to 
conquer.1  So  strange  a  scheme  of  partitioning  that  vast  in 
heritance  was  never,  I  believe,  suspected  till  the  publication 
of  the  treaty,  though  Bolingbroke  had  alluded  to  a  pre 
vious  treaty  of  partition  between  Louis  and  the  emperor 
Leopold,  the  complete  discovery  of  which  has  been  but  lately 
made.2 

Each   conspirator,  in  his  coalition  against  the  protestant 
faith  and  liberties  of  Europe,  had  splendid  objects 

Differences         .  .  /•   T        •  i    i        i-        xi 

between  in  view ;  but  those  of  Louis  seemed  by  far  the 
SuSs^  more  probable  of  the  two  and  less  liable  to  be  de- 
themodeof  featecl.  The  full  completion  of  their  scheme  would 
s  execution.  haye  reunite(j  a  great  kingdom  to  the  catholic 
religion,  and  turned  a  powerful  neighbor  into  a  dependent 
pensioner.  But  should  this  fail  (and  Louis  was  too  sagacious 
not  to  discern  the  chances  of  failure),  he  had  pledged  to  him 
the  assistance  of  an  ally  in  subjugating  the  republic  of  Hol 
land,  which,  according  to  all  human  calculation  could  not 
withstand  their  united  efforts ;  nay,  even  in  those  ulterior 
projects  which  his  restless  and  sanguine  ambition  had  ever 
in- view,  and  the  success  of  which  would  have  realized,  not 
indeed  the  chimera  of  an  universal  monarchy,  but  a  suprem 
acy  and  dictatorship  over  Europe.  Charles,  on  the  other 

1  P.  49.  Austrian  cabinet  understood  this;   and 

2  Boiingbroke  has  a  remarkable  pas-  proposed  that  they  should  exchange  their 
sage  as  to  this  in  his  Letters  on  History  shares.      Finally,  however,  it   was   con- 
(Letter  vii.):   it  may  be  also  alluded  to  eluded  on  the  king's  terms,  except  that 
by  others.     The  full  details,  however,  as  he  was  to  take  Sicily  instead  of  Milan, 
well  as  more  authentic  proofs,  were  re-  One  article  of  this  treaty  was,  that  Louis 
served,  as  I  believe,  for  the  publication  should  keep  what  he  had  conquered  in 
of  (Euvres  de   Louis   XIV.,  where  they  Flanders  ;  in  other  words,  the  terms  of 
will  be  found  in  vol.  ii.  403.     The  pro-  the  treaty  of  Aix  la  Chapelle.     The  rati- 
posal  of  Louis   to  the  emperor,  in  1667,  fications  were  exchanged  29th  Feb.  1668. 
was,  that  France  should  have  the  Pays  Louis  represents  himself  as  more  induced 
Bas,  Franche  Comte.  Milan,  Naples,  the  by  this  prospect  than  by  any  fear  of  the 
ports  of  Tuscany,  Navarre,  and  the  Phil-  triple  alliance,  of  which  he  speaks  slight- 
ippine  Islands  ;  Leopold  taking  all  the  ingly,  to  conclude  the  peace  of  Aix  la 
rest.     The  obvious  drift  of  this  was,  that  Chapelle.      He  thought  that  he  should 
France  should  put  herself  in  possession  acquire  a  character  for  moderation  which 
of  an  enormous  increase  of  power  and  might  be  serviceable  to  him  "  dans  leS 
territory,  leaving  Leopold  to  fight  as  he  grands    accroissemens    que   ma  fortune 
could  for  Spain  and  America,  which  were  pourroit  recevoir.-'     Vol.  ii.  p.  369. 

not    likely   to   submit   peaceably.      The 


CHA.  II.  —  1GGO-73.        OF   SECRET   TREATY.  365 

hand,  besides  that  he  had  no  other  return  to  make  for  the 
necessary  protection  of  France,  was  impelled  by  a  personal 
hatred  of  the  Dutch,  and  by  the  consciousness  that  their 
commonwealth  was  the  standing  reproach  of  arbitrary  power, 
to  join  readily  in  the  plan  for  its  subversion.  But,  looking 
first  to  his  own  objects,  and  perhaps  a  little  distrustful  of  his 
ally,  he  pressed  that  his  profession  of  the  Roman  catholic  re 
ligion  should  be  the  first  measure  in  prosecution  of  the 
treaty ;  and  that  he  should  immediately  receive  the  stipulated 
200,000/.,  or  at  least  a  part  of  the  money.  Louis  insisted 
that  the  declaration  of  war  against  Holland  should  precede. 
This  difference  occasioned  considerable  delay  ;  and  it  was 
chiefly  with  a  view  of  bringing  round  her  brother  on  this 
point  that  the  duchess  of  Orleans  took  her  famous  journey  to 
Dover  in  the  spring  of  1G70.  Yet,  notwithstanding  her  in 
fluence,  which  passed  for  irresistible,  he  persisted  in  adhering 
to  the  right  reserved  to  him  in  the  draft  of  the  treaty  of 
choosing  his  own  time  for  the  declaration  of  his  religion ;  and 
it  was  concluded  on  this  footing  at  Dover,  by  Clifford,  Arun- 
del,  and  Arlington,  on  the  22d  of  May,  1670,  during  the  visit 
of  the  duchess  of  Orleans.1 

A  mutual  distrust,  however,  retarded  the  further  progress 
of  this  scheme,  one  party  unwilling  to  commit  himself  till  he 
should  receive  money,  the  other  too  cautious  to  run  the  risk 
of  throwing  it  away.  There  can  be  no  question  but  that  the 
king  of  France  was  right  in  urging  the  conquest  of  Holland 
as  a  preliminary  of  the  more  delicate  business  they  were  to 

i  Dalrymple,    31-57.      James    gives   a  have    been    if   the    private    treaty   first 

different  account  of  this;  and  intimates  agreed  on  had  not  been  altered."      The 

that  Elenrietta,  whose  visit  to  Dover  he  French    court,   however,   was    evidently 

had  for  this  reason  been  much  against,  right  in  thinking  that,  till  the  conquest 

Krevailed  on  the  king  to  change  his  reso-  of  Holland  should  be  achieved,  the  dec- 
.ition,  and  to  begin  with  the  war.  He  laration  of  the  king's  religion  would  only 
gained  over  Arlington  and  Clifford.  The  weaken  him  at  home.  It  is  gratifying  to 
duke  told  them  it  would  quite  defeat  the  find  the  heroic  character  of  our  glorious 
catholic  design,  because  the  king  must  deliverer  displaying  itself  among  these 
run  in  debt,  and  be  at  the  mercy  of  his  foul  conspiracies.  The  prince  of  Orange 
parliament.  They  answered  that,  if  the  came  over  to  England  in  1670.  He  was 
war  succeeded,  it  was  not  much  matter  then  very  young;  and  his  uncle,  who  was 
what  people  suspected.  P.  450.  This  really  attached  to  him,  would  have  gladly 
shows  that  they  looked  on  force  as  neces-  associated  him  in  the  design  ;  indeed  it 
sary  to  compass  the  design,  and  that  had  been  agreed  that  he  was  to  possess 
the  noble  resistance  of  the  Dutch,  under  part  of  the  United  Provinces  in  sover- 
the  prince  of  Orange,  was  that  which  eignty.  But  Colbert  \vrites  that  the 
frustrated  the  whole  conspiracy.  "  The  king  had  found  him  so  zealous  a  Dutch- 
duke,"  it  is  again  said.  p.  453,  "  was  in  man  and  protestant,  that  he  could  not 
his  own  judgment  against  entering  into  trust  him  with  any  part  of  the  secret, 
this  war  before  his  majesty's  power  and  He  let  him  know,  however,  as  we  learn, 
authority  in  England  had  been  better  from  Burnet,  382,  that  he  had  himself 
fixed  and  less  precarious,  as  it  would  embraced  the  Romish  faith. 


366  SECRET   TREATY  WITH  FRANCE.          CHAP.  XI. 

manage  in  England ;  and,  from  Charles's  subsequent  be 
havior,  as  well  as  his  general  fickleness  and  love  of  ease, 
there  seems  reason  to  believe  that  he  would  gladly  have  re 
ceded  from  an  undertaking  of  which  he  must  every  day  have 
more  strongly  perceived  the  difficulties.  He  confessed,  in 
fact,  to  Louis's  ambassador,  that  he  was  almost  the  only  man 
in  his  kingdom  who  liked  a  French  alliance.1  The  change 
of  religion,  on  a  nearer  view,  appeared  dangerous  for  himself 
and  impracticable  as  a  national  measure.  He  had  not  dared 
to  intrust  any  of  his  protestant  ministers,  even  Buckingham, 
whose  indifference  in  such  points  was  notorious,  with  this 
great  secret ;  and,  to  keep  them  the  better  in  the  dark,  a 
mock  negotiation  was  set  on  foot  with  France,  and  a  pre 
tended  treaty  actually  signed,  the  exact  counterpart  of  the 
other  except  as  to  religion.  Buckingham,  Shaftesbury,  and 
Lauderdale  were  concerned  in  this  simulated  treaty,  the 
negotiation  for  which  did  not  commence  till  after  the  original 
convention  had  been  signed  at  Dover.2 

The  court  of  France,  having  yielded  to  Charles  the  point 
about  which  he  had  seemed  so  anxious,  had  soon  the  mortifi 
cation  to  discover  that  he  would  take  no  steps  to  effect  it. 
They  now  urged  that  immediate  declaration  of  his  religion 
which  they  had  for  very  wise  reasons  not  long  before  dis 
suaded.  The  king  of  England  hung  back,  and  tried  so  many 
excuses  that  they  had  reason  to  suspect  his  sincerity ;  not 
that  in  fact  he  had  played  a  feigned  part  from  the  beginning, 
but,  his  zeal  for  popery  having  given  way  to  the  seductions 
of  a  voluptuous  and  indolent  life,  he  had  been  led,  with  the 
good  sense  he  naturally  possessed,  to  form  a  better  estimate 
of  his  resources  and  of  the  opposition  he  must  encounter. 
Meanwhile  the  eagerness  of  his  ministers  had  plunged  the 
nation  into  war  with  Holland,  and  Louis,  having  attained  his 
principal  end,  ceased  to  trouble  the  king  on  the  subject  of  re 
ligion.  He  received  large  sums  from  France  during  the 
Dutch  war.3 

This  memorable  transaction  explains  and  justifies  the 
strenuous  opposition  made  in  parliament  to  the  king  and  duke 
of  York,  and  may  be  reckoned  the  first  act  of  a  drama  which 

1  Dalrymple,  57.  with    Buckingham.       But    Dalrymple's 

2  P.  68.     Life  of  James,  444.     In  this    authority  seems  far  better  in.  this  in- 
work  it  is  said  that  even  the  duchess  of     stance. 

Orleans   had  no  knowledge  of  the    real        «  Dalrymple,  84,  &c. 
treaty  ;   and  that   the   other  originated 


CHA.  II.  — 1060-73.     DESIGN  TO  RE-ESTABLISH  POPERY.       367 

ended  in  the  revolution.  It  is  true  that  the  precise  terms  of 
this  treaty  were  not  authentically  known  :  but  there  can  be 
no  doubt  that  those  who  from  this  time  displayed  an  insuper 
able  jealousy  of  one  brother,  and  a  determined  enmity  to  the 
other,  had  proofs  enough  for  moral  conviction  of  their  deep 
conspiracy  with  France  against  religion  and  liberty.  This 
suspicion  is  implied  in  all  the  conduct  of  that  parliamentary 
opposition,  and  is  the  apology  of  much  that  seems  violence 
and  faction,  especially  in  the  business  of  the  popish  plot  and 
the  bill  of  exclusion.  It  is  of  importance  also  to  observe 
that  James  II.  was  not  misled  and  betrayed  by  false  or  fool 
ish  counsellors,  as  some  would  suggest,  in  his  endeavors  to 
subvert  the  laws,  but  acted  on  a  plan  long  since  concerted 
and  in  which  he  had  taken  a  principal  share. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  neither  in  the  treaty  itself,  nor  in 
the  few  letters  which  have  been  published  by  Dalrymple,  do 
we  find  any  explicit  declaration  either  that  the  catholic  relig 
ion  was  to  be  established  as  the  national  church  or  arbitrary 
power  introduced  in  England.  But  there  are  not  wanting 
strong  presumptions  of  this  design.  The  king  speaks,  in  a 
letter  to  his  sister,  of  finding  means  to  put  the  proprietors  of 
church  lands  out  of  apprehension.1  He  uses  the  expression, 
"  retablir  la  religion  catholique ;  "  which,  though  not  quite 
unequivocal,  seems  to  convey  more  than  a  bare  toleration  or 
a  personal  profession  by  the  sovereign.'2  He  talks  of  a  ne 
gotiation  with  the  court  of  Rome  to  obtain  the  permission  of 
having  mass  in  the  vulgar  tongue  and  communion  in  both 
kinds  as  terms  that  would  render  his  conversion  agreeable  to 
his  subjects.3  He  tells  the  French  ambassador  that  not  only 
his  conscience,  but  the  confusion  he  saw  every  day  increasing 
in  his  kingdom  to  the  diminution  of  his  authority,  impelled 
him  to  declare  himself  a  catholic  ;  which,  besides  the  spiritual 
advantage,  he  believed  to  be  the  only  means  of  restoring  the 
monarchy.  These  passages,  as  well  as  the  precautions  taken 
in  expectation  of  a  vigorous  resistance  from  a  part  of  the 
nation,  appear  to  intimate  a  formal  reestablishment  of  the 
catholic  church :  a  measure  connected,  in  the  king's  appre 
hension,  if  not  strictly  with  arbitrary  power,  yet  with  a  very 

i  Dalrymple.  23.  religion,   towards  which   he  had  always 

-  P.   52.      The  reluctance   to  let   the  beeu  disposed,  arid  which  was  hardly  a 

duke  of   Buckingham    into    the    secret  secret  at  court. 

seems   to   prove   that  more  was    meant  3  Pp.  62.  84. 

than  a  toleration  of  the  Roman  catholic 


368  FRESH   SEVERITIES  CHAP.  XI. 

material  enhancement  of  his  prerogative.  For  the  profession 
of  an  obnoxious  faith  by  the  king,  as  an  insulated  person, 
would,  instead  of  strengthening  his  authority,  prove  the 
greatest  obstacle  to  it,  as,  in  the  next  reign,  turned  out  to  be 
the  case.  Charles,  however,  and  the  duke  of  York  deceived 
themselves  into  a  confidence  that  the  transition  could  be  ef 
fected  with  no  extraordinary  difficulty.  The  king  knew  the 
prevailing  laxity  of  religious  principles  in  many  about  his 
court,  and  thought  he  had  reason  to  rely  on  others  as  secretly 
catholic.  Sunderland  is  mentioned  as  a  young  man  of  talent, 
inclined  to  adopt  that  religion.1  Even  the  earl  of  Orrery  is 
spoken  of  as  a  catholic  in  his  heart.2  The  duke,  who  con 
versed  more  among  divines,  was  led  to  hope,  from  the  strange 
language  of  the  high-church  party,  that  they  might  readily 
be  persuaded  to  make  what  seemed  no  long  step,  and  come 
into  easy  terms  of  union.3  It  was  the  constant  policy  of  the 
Romish  priests  to  extenuate  the  differences  between  the  two 
churches,  and  to  throw  the  main  odium  of  the  schism  on  the 
Calvinistic  sects.  And  many  of  the  Anglicans,  in  their  ab 
horrence  of  protestant  non-conformists,  played  into  the  hands 
of  the  common  enemy. 

The  court,  however,  entertained  great  hopes  from  the  de 
pressed  condition  of  the  dissenters,  whom  it  was 
severities  intended  to  bribe  with  that  toleration  under  a 
catholic  regimen  which  they  could  so  little  expect 
from  the  church  of  England.  Hence  the  duke  of 
York  was  always  strenuous  against  schemes  of  comprehen 
sion,  which  would  invigorate  the  protestant  interest  and  pro 
mote  conciliation.  With  the  opposite  viewr  of  rendering  a 
union  among  protestants  impracticable,  the  rigorous  episcopa 
lians  were  encouraged  underhand  to  prosecute  the  non-con 
formists.4  The  duke  of  York  took  pains  to  assure  Owen,  an 
eminent  divine  of  the  independent  persuasion,  that  he  looked 
on  all  persecution  as  an  unchristian  thing,  and  altogether 
against  his  conscience.5  Yet  the  court  promoted  a  renewal 
of  the  temporary  act  passed  in  1664  against  conventicles, 
which  was  reinforced  by  the  addition  of  an  extraordinary 

1  Dalrymple,  p.  81.  religion  to  choose,  and  went  to  church 

2  p.  33.  for  company's  sake."     Lite  of  James,  p. 

3  "  The  generality  of  the  church  of     442. 

England  men  was  not  at  that  time  very        4  Life  of  James,  p.  442. 

averse   to   the   catholic    religion;    many        5  Macphersou's  Extracts,  p.  51. 

that  went   under   that   name  had  their 


CHA.  II.  — 1660-73.       AGAINST  DISSENTERS.  369 

proviso,  "  That  all  clauses  in  the  act  should  be  construed 
most  largely  and  beneficially  for  suppressing  conventicles, 
and  for  the  justification  and  encouragement  of  all  persons  to 
be  employed  in  the  execution  thereof.1  Wilkins,  the  most 
honest  of  the  bishops,  opposed  this  act  in  the  house  of  lords, 
notwithstanding  the  king's  personal  request  that  he  would  be 
silent.2  Sheldon,  and  others  who,  like  him,  disgraced  the 
church  of  England  by  their  unprincipled  policy  or  their  pas 
sions,  not  only  gave  it  their  earnest  support  at  the  time,  but 
did  all  in  their  power  to  enforce  its  execution.3  As  the  king's 
temper  was  naturally  tolerant,  his  cooperation  in  this  severe 
measure  would  not  easily  be  understood  without  the  expla 
nation  that  a  knowledge  of  his  secret  policy  enables  us  to 
give.  In  no  long  course  of  time  the  persecution  was  relaxed, 
the  imprisoned  ministers  set  at  liberty,  some  of  the  leading 
dissenters  received  pensions,  and  the  king's  declaration  of  a 
general  indulgence  held  forth  an  asylum  from  the  law  under 
the  banner  of  prerogative.4  Though  this  is  said  to  have  pro 
ceeded  from  the  advice  of  Shaftesbury,  who  had  no  concern 
in  the  original  secret  treaty  with  France,  it  was  completely 
in  the  spirit  of  that  compact,  and  must  have  been  acceptable 
to  the  king. 

But  the  factious,  fanatical,  republican  party  (such  were  the 
usual  epithets  of  the  court  at  the  time,  such  have  ever  since 
been  applied  by  the  advocates  or  apologists  of  the  Stuarts) 
had  gradually  led  away  by  their  delusions  that  parliament  of 
cavaliers  ;  or,  in  other  words,  the  glaring  vices  of  the  king, 
and  the  manifestation  of  designs  against  religion  and  liberty, 

1  22  Car.  2.  c.  1.    Rennet,  p.  306.    The  own  time,  wherein  he  largely  commem- 
zeal    in    the    commons    against    popery  orates  the  archbishop's  zeal  in  molest- 
tended  to  aggravate  this  persecution  of  ing  the  dissenters,  and   praises   him  for 
the  dissenters.     They  had  been  led   by  defeating  the  scheme  of  comprehension, 
some  furious   clergymen   to   believe   the  P.  25.     I  observe,  that  the  late  excellent 
absurdity  that  there  was  a  good  under-  editor  of  Burnet  has  endeavored  to  slide 
standing  between  the  two  parties.  in  a  word  for  the  primate  (note  on  vol.  i. 

2  Burnet,  p.  272.  p.  243),  on  the  authority  of  that  history 

3  Baxter,  pp.  74,  86.     Rennet,  p.  311.  by  bishop  Parker,  and  of  Sheldon's  Life 
See  a  letter  of  Sheldon,  written  at  this  in  the  Biographia  Britanuica.     It  is  lam- 
time,    to    the    bishops   of   his    province,  entable  to  rest  on  such  proofs.     I  should 
urging  them  to  persecute  the  non-con-  certainly  not  have  expected  that,  in  Mag- 
formists.      Harris's  Life  of  Charles   II.,  dalen  college,  of  all  places,  the  name  of 
p.   106.     Proofs  also  are  given  by  this  Parker  would  have  been  held  in  honor; 
author  of  the  manner  in  which  some,  and  as  to  the  Biograpliia,  laudatory  as  it 
such  as  Lamplugh  and  Ward,  responded  is  of  primates  in  general  (save  Tillotson, 
to  their  primate's  wishes.  whom  it   depreciates).   I    find,   on  refer- 

Sheldon    found    a    panegyrist     quite  ence,  that  its  praise  of  Sheldon's  virtues 

worthy  of  him  in  his  chaplain  Parker,  is  grounded  on  the  authority  of  his  epi- 

afterwards  bishop  of  Oxford.     This  nota-  taph  in  Croydon  church, 
ble  person  has  left  a  Latin  history  of  his        *  Baxter.  87. 

VOL.  ii.  24 


370  DUTCH  WAR.  CHAP.  XI. 

had  dispossessed  them  of  a  confiding  loyalty  which,  though 
highly  dangerous  from  its  excess,  had  always  been  rather 
ardent  than  servile.  The  sessions  had  been  short,  and  the 
intervals  of  repeated  prorogations  much  longer  than  usual : 
a  policy  not  well  calculated  for  that  age,  where  the  growing 
discontents  and  suspicions  of  the  people  acquired  strength  by 
the  stoppage  of  the  regular  channel  of  complaint.  Yet  the 
house  of  commons,  during  this  period,  though  unmanageable 
on  the  one  point  of  toleration,  had  displayed  no  want  of  confi 
dence  in  the  king  nor  any  animosity  towards  his  administra 
tion  ;  notwithstanding  the  flagrant  abuses  in  the  expenditure 
which  the  parliamentary  commission  of  public  accounts  had 
brought  to  light,  and  the  outrageous  assault  on  sir  John  Cov 
entry,  a  crime  notoriously  perpetrated  by  persons  employed 
by  the  court,  and  probably  by  the  king's  direct  order.1 

The  war  with  Holland  at  the  beginning  of  1G72,  so  repug 
nant  to  English  interests,  so  unwarranted  by  any 

Dutch  war.  .     6  .  '  .        .      ,    .       .      J         J 

provocation,  so  infamously  piratical  in  its  com 
mencement,  so  ominous  of  further  schemes  still  more  dark 
and  dangerous,  finally  opened  the  eyes  of  all  men  of  integ 
rity.  It  was  accompanied  by  the  shutting  up  of  the  ex 
chequer,  an  avowed  bankruptcy  at  the  moment  of  beginning 
an  expensive  war,2  and  by  the  declaration  of  indulgence,  or 
suspension  of  all  penal  laws  in  religion  :  an  assertion  of  pre 
rogative  which  seemed  without  limit.  These  exorbitances 
were  the  more  scandalous  that  they  happened  during  a  very 
long  prorogation.  Hence  the  court  so  lost  the  confidence  of 
the  house  of  commons  that,  with  all  the  lavish  corruption  of 
the  following  period,  it  could  never  regain  a  secure  majority 

1  This  is  asserted  by  Burnet,  and  seems  but  this  was  never  paid  till  the  latter 
to  be  acknowledged  by  the  duke  of  York,  part  of  William  ;s  reign.     It  may  be  con- 
The  court  endeavored  to  mitigate  the  ef-  sidered  as  the  beginning  of  our  national 
feet  of  the  bill  brought  into  the  commons  debt.     It  seems  to  have  been  intended  to 
in  consequence  of  Coventry's  injury  ;  and  follow  the  shutting  up  of  the  exchequer 
so  far  succeeded,  that,  instead  of  a  par-  with  a  still  more  unwarrantable  stretch 
tial  measure  of  protection  for  the  mem-  of  power,  by  granting  an  injunction  to 
bers  of  the  house  of  commons,  as  origi-  the  creditors  who  were  suing  the  bankers 
nally  designed,  (which  seemed,  I  suppose,  at  law.      According  to  North  (Exainen, 
to  carry  too  marked  a  reference  to   the  pp.38. 47),  lord-keeper Bridgman  resigned 
particular   transaction,)  it    was    turned  the  great  seal,  rather  than  comply  with 
into  a  general  act,  making  it  a  capital  this  ;  and  Shaftcsbury  himself,  who  suc- 
felony  to  wound  with  intention  to  maim  ceeded  him,  did  not  venture,  if  I  under- 
or  disfigure.  But  the  name  of  the  Coven-  stand  the  passage  rightly,   to  grant  an 
try  act  has  always  clung  to  this  statute,  absolute  injunction.     The  promise  of  in- 
Parl.  Hist.  461.  terest  for  their  money  seems  to  have  been 

2  The  king  promised    the   bankers  in-  given  instead   of  this    more   illegal  and 
terest  at  six  per  cent.,  instead  of  the  violent  remedy. 

money  due  to  them  from  the  exchequer; 


CHA.  II.  — 1060-73.   DECLARATION  OF  INDULGENCE.     371 

on  any  important  question.  The  superiority  of  what  was 
called  the  country  party  is  referred  to  the  session  of  Febru 
ary,  1673,  in  which  they  compelled  the  king  to  recall  his 
proclamation  suspending  the  penal  laws,  and  raised  a  barrier 
against  the  encroachments  of  popery  in  the  test  act. 

The  king's  declaration  of  indulgence  had  been  projected 
by  Shaftesbury  in  order  to  conciliate  or  lull  to  Declaration 
sleep  the  protestant  dissenters.  It  redounded,  in  of  indui- 
its  immediate  effect,  chiefly  to  their  benefit ;  the  ge 
catholics  already  enjoying  a  connivance  at  the  private  exer 
cise  of  their  religion,  and  the  declaration  expressly  refusing 
them  public  places  of  worship.  The  plan  was  most  laudable 
in  itself,  could  we  separate  the  motives  which  prompted  it,  and 
the  means  by  which  it  was  pretended  to  be  made  effectual. 
But  in  the  declaration  the  king  says,  "  We  think  ourselves 
obliged  to  make  use  of  that  supreme  power  in  ecclesiastical 
matters  which  is  not  only  inherent  in  us,  but  hath  been  de 
clared  and  recognized  to  be  so  by  several  statutes  and  acts  of 
parliament."  "  We  do,"  he  says,  not  long  afterwards,  "  de 
clare  our  will  and  pleasure  to  be,  that  the  execution  of  all 
and  all  manner  of  penal  laws  in  matters  ecclesiastical,  against 
whatsoever  sort  of  non-conformists  or  recusants,  be  immedi 
ately  suspended,  and  they  are  hereby  suspended."  He  men 
tions  also  his  intention  to  license  a  certain  number  of  places 
for  the  religious  worship  of  non-conforming  protestants.1 

It  was  generally  understood  to  be  an  ancient  prerogative 
of  the  crown  to  dispense  with  penal  statutes  in  favor  of 
particular  persons,  and  under  certain  restrictions.  It  was 
undeniable  that  the  king  might,  by  what  is  called  a  "  noli 
prosequi,"  stop  any  criminal  prosecution  commenced  in  his 
courts,  though  not  an  action  for  the  recovery  of  a  pecuniary 
penalty,  which,  by  many  statutes,  was  given  to  the  common 
informer.  He  might,  of  course,  set  at  liberty,  by  means  of 
a  pardon,  any  person  imprisoned,  whether  upon  conviction 
or  by  a  magistrate's  warrant.  Thus  the  operation  of  penal 
statutes  in  religion  might,  in  a  great  measure,  be  rendered 
ineffectual  by  an  exercise  of  undisputed  prerogatives  ;  and 
thus,  in  fact,  the  catholics  had  been  enabled,  since  the  ac 
cession  of  the  house  of  Stuart,  to  withstand  the  crushing 
severity  of  the  laws.  But  a  pretension,  in  explicit  terms, 
to  suspend  a  body  of  statutes,  a  command  to  magistrates 

i  Parl.  Hist.  515.     Rennet,  313. 


372         DECLARATION  OF  INDULGENCE.     CHAP.  XL 

not  to  put  them  in  execution,  arrogated  a  sort  of  absolute 
power  which  no  benefits  of  the  indulgence  itself  (had  they 
even  been  less  insidiously  offered)  could  induce  a  lover  of 
constitutional  privileges  to  endure.1  Notwithstanding  the 
affected  distinction  of  temporal  and  ecclesiastical  matters,  it 
was  evident  that  the  king's  supremacy  was  as  much  capable 
of  being  bounded  by  the  legislature  in  one  as  in  the  other, 
and  that  every  law  in  the  statute-book  might  be  repealed 
by  a  similar  proclamation.  The  house  of  commons  voted 
that  the  king's  prerogative  in  matters  ecclesiastical  does 
opposed  by  not  extend  to  repeal  acts  of  parliament,  and  ad- 
pariiament,  dressed  the  king  to  recall  his  declaration.  Whether 
from  a  desire  to  protect  the  non-conformists  in  a  toleration 
even  illegally  obtained,  or  from  the  influence  of  Bucking 
ham  among  some  of  the  leaders  of  opposition,  it  appears 
from  the  debates  that  many  of  those,  who  had  been  in 
general  most  active  against  the  court,  resisted  this  vote, 
which  was  carried  by  168  to  116.  The  king,  in  his  answer 
to  this  address,  lamented  that  the  house  should  question  his 
ecclesiastical  power,  which  had  never  been  done  before. 
This  brought  on  a  fresh  rebuke,  and,  in  a  second  address, 
they  positively  deny  the  king's  right  to  suspend  any  law. 
'k  The  legislative  power,"  they  say,  "  has  always  been  ac 
knowledged  to  reside  in  the. king  and  two  houses  of  parlia 
ment."  The  king,  in  a  speech  to  the  house  of  lords,  com 
plained  much  of  the  opposition  made  by  the  commons,  and 
found  a  majority  of  the  former  disposed  to  support  him, 
though  both  houses  concurred  in  an  address  against  the 
and  with-  growth  of  popery.  At  length,  against  the  advice 
drawn.  of  the  bolder  part  of  his  council,  but  certainly 

with  a  just  sense  of  what  he  most  valued,  his  ease  of  mind, 
Charles  gave  way  to  the  public  voice,  and  withdrew  his 
declaration.2 

1  Bridgman,  the  lord-keeper,  resigned  Pepys,  some  years  before,  that  he  feared 
the  great  seal,  according  to  Burnet,  be-  some  would  try  for  extending  the  tolera- 
cause  he  would  not  put  it  to  the  declara-  tion   to  papists ;    but    the   sober   party 
tion  of  indulgence,  and  was  succeeded  by  would  rather  be  without  it  than  have  it 
Shaftesbury.  on  those  terms.     Pepys's  Diary,  Jan.  31, 

2  Parl.    Hist.   517.      The   presbyterian  1668.     Parl.  Hist.  546,  561.     Father  Or- 
party  do  not  appear  to  have  supported  leans  says  that  Ormond,  Arlington,  and 
the    declaration  —  at    least  Birch    spoke  some  others,  advised  the  king  to  comply ; 
against  it:  Waller,  Seymour,  sir  Robert  the  duke  and  the  rest  of  the  council  urg- 
Howard  in  its  favor.      Baxter  says  the  ing  him  to  adhere,  and  Shaftesbury,  who 
non-conformists  were  divided  in  opinion  had  been  the  first  mover  of  the  project, 
as  to  the  propriety  of  availing  themselves  pledging  himself  for  its  success  :    there 
of  the  declaration.     P.  99.      Birch  told  being  a  party  for  the   king  among   the 


CHA.  II.  — 1660-73.  TEST   ACT.  373 

There  was,  indeed,  a  line  of  policy  indicated  at  this  time 
which,  though  intolerable  to  the  bigotry  and  passion  of  the 
house,  would  best  have  foiled  the  schemes  of  the  ministry  ; 
a  legislative  repeal  of  all  the  penal  statutes  both  against  the 
catholic  and  the  protestant  dissenter,  as  far  as  regarded  the 
exercise  of  their  religion.  It  must  be  evident  to  any  im 
partial  man  that  the  unrelenting  harshness  of  parliament, 
from  whom  no  abatement,  even  in  the  sanguinary  laws 
against  the  priests  of  the  Romish  church,  had  been  obtained, 
had  naturally  and  almost  irresistibly  driven  the  members  of 
that  persuasion  into  the  camp  of  prerogative,  and  even  fur 
nished  a  pretext  for  that  continual  intrigue  and  conspiracy 
which  was  carried  on  in  the  court  of  Charles  II.,  as  it  had 
been  in  that  of  his  father.  A  genuine  toleration  would  have 
put  an  end  to  much  of  this,  but,  in  the  circumstances  of  that 
age,  it  could  not  have  been  safely  granted  without  an  exclu 
sion  from  those  public  trusts  which  were  to  be  conferred  by  a 
sovereign  in  whom  no  trust  could  be  reposed. 

The  act  of  supremacy  in  the  first  year  of  Elizabeth  had 
imposed  on  all  accepting  temporal  as  well  as  ecclesiastical 
offices  an  oath  denying  the  spiritual  jurisdiction  of  the  pope. 
But  though  the  refusal  of  this  oath  when  tendered  incurred 
various  penalties,  yet  it  does  not  appear  that  any  were  at 
tached  to  its  neglect,  or  that  the  oath  was  a  previous  qual 
ification  for  the  enjoyment  of  office,  as  it  was  made  by  a 
subsequent  act  of  the  same  reign  for  sitting  in  the  house  of 
commons.  It  was  found  also  by  experience  that  persons 
attached  to  the  Roman  doctrine  sometimes  made  use  of 
strained  constructions  to  reconcile  the  oath  of  supremacy  to 
their  faith.  Nor  could  that  test  be  offered  to 
peers,  who  were  excepted  by  a  special  provision. 
For  these  several  reasons  a  more  effectual  security  against 
popish  counsellors,  at  least  in  notorious  power,  \vas  created 
by  the  famous  test  act  of  1673,  which  renders  the  reception 
of  the  sacrament  according  to  the  rites  of  the  church  of 
England,  and  a  declaration  renouncing  the  doctrine  of  tran- 
substantiation,  preliminary  conditions  without  which  no  tem 
poral  office  of  trust  can  be  enjoyed.1  In  this  fundamental 

commons,  and  a  force  on  foot  enough  to  round,  provoked  at  the  king's   want  of 

daunt  the  other  side.     It  was  suspected  steadiness,  and  especially  at  his  giving 

that  the  women  interposed,  and  prevailed  up  the  point  about  issuing  writs  in  the 

on  the  king  to  withdraw  his  declaration,  recess  of  parliament. 

Upon     this     Shaftesbury   turned    short  1  25  Car.  2,  c.  2.     Burnet,  p.  490. 


374  TEST  ACT.  CHAP.  XI. 

article  of  faith  no  compromise  or  equivocation  would  be 
admitted  by  any  member  of  the  church  of  Rome.  And, 
as  the  obligation  extended  to  the  highest  ranks,  this  reached 
the  end  for  which  it  was  immediately  designed  ;  compelling 
not  only  the  lord-treasurer  Clifford,  the  boldest  and  most 
dangerous  of  that  party,  to  retire  from  public  business,  but 
the  duke  of  York  himself,  whose  desertion  of  the  protestant 
church  was  hitherto  not  absolutely  undisguised,  to  quit  the 
post  of  lord-admiral.1 

It  is  evident  that  a  test  might  have  been  framed  to  exclude 
the  Roman  catholic  as  effectually  as  the  present  without 
bearing  like  this  on  the  protestant  non-conformist.  But, 
though  the  preamble  of  the  bill,  and  the  whole  history  of 
the  transaction,  show  that  the  main  object  was  a  safeguard 
against  popery,  it  is  probable  that  a  majority  of  both  houses 
liked  it  the  better  for  this  secondary  effect  of  shutting  out 
the  presbyterians  still  more  than  had  been  done  by  previous 
statutes  of  this  reign.  There  took  place,  however,  a  remark 
able  coalition  between  the  two  parties  ;  and  many  who  had 
always  acted  as  high-churchmen  and  cavaliers,  sensible  at 
last  of  the  policy  of  their  common  adversaries,  renounced  a 
good  deal  of  the  intolerance  and  bigotry  that  had  character 
ized  the  present  parliament.  The  dissenters,  with  much 
prudence  or  laudable  disinterestedness,  gave  their  support 
to  the  test  act.  In  return,  a  bill  was  brought  in,  and  after 
some  debate  passed  to  the  lords,  repealing  in  a  considerable 
degree  the  persecuting  laws  against  their  worship.2  The 
upper  house,  perhaps  invidiously,  returned  it  with  amend 
ments  more  favorable  to  the  dissenters,  and  insisted  upon 
them  after  a  conference.3  A  sudden  prorogation  very  soon 

1  The  test  act   began  in  a  resolution,  chitel  Grey,  a  member  of  the  commons  for 
February  28,  1673,  that   all    who  refuse  thirty  years ;  but  his  notes,  though  col- 
to  take  the  oaths  and  receive  the  sacra-  lectively   most  valuable,   are  sometimes 
ment  according  to  the  rites  of  the  church  so  brief  and  ill  expressed,  that  it  is  hardly 
of  England  shall    be   incapable    of    all  possible  to  make  out  their  meaning.    The 
public   employments.     Parl.   Hist.   556.  court  and  church  party,  or  rather  some 
The  court  party  endeavored  to  oppose  the  of  them,  seem   to  have  much   opposed 
declaration    against    transubstantiation,  this  bill  for  the  relief  of  protestant  dis- 
but  of  course  in  vain.     Id.  561,  592.  senters. 

The  king  had  pressed  his  brother  to  a  Commons'  Journals.  28th  and  29fch 
receive  the  sacrament  in  order  to  avoid  March,  1673.  Lords'  Journals,  24th  and 
suspicion,  which  he  absolutely  refused;  29th  March.  The  lords  were  so  slow 
and  this  led,  he  says,  to  the  test.  Life  of  about  this  bill  that  the  lower  house, 
James,  p.  482.  But  his  religion  was  long  knowing  an  adjournment  to  be  in  con- 
pretty  well  known,  though  he  did  not  templation,  sent  a  message  to  quicken 
cease' to  conform  till  1672.  them,  according  to  a  practice  not  unu- 

2  Parl.  Hist.  526-585.     These  debates  sual  in  this  reign.   Perhaps,  on  an  atten- 
are  copied  from  those  published  by  An-  tive  consideration  of  the  report  on  the 


CIIA.  II.  — 1660-73.        FALL   or  THE  CABAL.  375 

put  an  end  to  this  bill,  which  was  as  unacceptable  to  the 
court  as  it  was  to  the  zealots  of  the  church  of  England.  It 
had  been  intended  to  follow  it  up  by  another,  excluding  all 
who  should  not  conform  to  the  established  church  from  serv 
ing  in  the  house  of  commons.1 

It  may  appear  remarkable  that,  as  if  content  with  these 
provisions,  the  victorious  country  party  did  not  remonstrate 
against  the  shutting  up  of  the  exchequer,  nor  even  wage  any 
direct  war  against  the  king's  advisers.  They  voted,  on  the 
contrary,  a  large  supply,  which,  as  they  did  not  choose  ex 
plicitly  to  recognize  the  Dutch  war,  was  expressed  to  be 
granted  for  the  king's  extraordinary  occasions.2  This  mod 
eration,  which  ought  at  least  to  rescue  them  from  the  charges 
of  faction  and  violence,  has  been  censured  by  some  as  servile 
and  corrupt ;  and  would  really  incur  censure  if  they  had  not 
attained  the  great  object  of  breaking  the  court  measures  by 
other  means.  But  the  test  act,  and  their  steady 
protestation  against  the  suspending  prerogative,  shaftesbury 
crushed  the  projects  and  dispersed  the  members  &n$ his 

/>  ^  i     i        riVi       T  •         ITT  •    •       colleagues. 

of  the  cabal.  I  he  king  had  no  longer  any  minis 
ter  on  whom  he  could  rely  ;  and,  with  his  indolent  temper, 
seems  from  this  time,  if  not  to  have  abandoned  all  hope  of 
declaring  his  change  of  religion,  yet  to  have  seen  both  that 
and  his  other  favorite  projects  postponed  without  much  re 
luctance.  From  a  real  predilection,  from  the  prospect  of 
gain,  and  partly,  no  doubt,  from  some  distant  views  of  arbi 
trary  power  and  a  catholic  establishment,  he  persevered  a 
long  time  in  clinging  secretly  to  the  interest  of  France  ;  but 
his  active  cooperation  in  the  schemes  of  1669  was  at  an  end. 
In  the  next  session,  of  October,  1673,  the  commons  drove 
Buckingham  from  the  king's  councils  ;  they  intimidated  Ar 
lington  into  a  change  of  policy  ;  and,  though  they  did  not 
succeed  in  removing  the  duke  of  Lauderdale,  compelled  him 
to  confine  himself  chiefly  to  the  affairs  of  Scotland.3 

conference  (March  29),  it  may  appear  that  the  committee  on  the  test  act,  that  a 

the  lords'  amendments  had  a  tendency  to  clause  should  be    introduced   rendering 

let  in  popish,  rather  than  to  favor  prot-  non-conformists  incapable  of   sitting  in 

estant  dissenters.     Parker  says  that  this  the  house  of  commons.  This  was  lost  by 

act   of  indulgence   was  defeated   by   his  163  to  107;  but  it  was  resolved  that  a 

great  hero,  archbishop  Sheldon,  who  pro-  distinct  bill  should  be  brought  in  for  that 

posed  that    the  non-conformists    should  purpose.     10th  March,  1673. 

acknowledge  the  war  against  Charles  I.  2  Rennet,  p.  318. 

to  be  unlawful.     Hist,  sui  temporis,  p.  3  Commons' Journals,  20th  Jan.  1674. 

203  of  the  translation.  Parl.  Hist.  608,  625,  6-19.     Burnet. 
i  It  was  proposed,  as  an  instruction  to 


376  DANBY'S   ADMINISTRATION.  CHAP.  XII. 


CHAPTER    XII. 

Earl  of  Danby's  Administration.  —  Opposition  in  the  Commons  —  Frequently  corrupt 

—  Character  of  Lord  Danby  —  Connection  of  the  Popular  Party  with  France  —  Its 
Motives  on  both  Sides  —  Doubt  as  to  their  Acceptance  of  Money  —  Secret  Treaties 
of  the  King  with  France  —  Fall  of  Danby — His  Impeachment  —  Questions  arising 
on  it  —  His  Commitment  to  the  Tower  —  Pardon  pleaded  in  Bar  —  Votes  of  Bishops 

—  Abatement  of  Impeachments  by  Dissolution  —  Popish  Plot —  Coleman's  Letters 

—  Godfrey's  Death  —  Injustice  of  Judges  on  the  Trials  —  Parliament  dissolved  — 
Exclusion  of  Duke  of  York  proposed  —  Schemes  of  Shaftesbury  and  Monmouth  — 
Unsteadiness  of  the  King  —  Expedients  to  avoid  the  Exclusion —  Names  of  Whig 
and  Tory  —  New  Council  formed  by  Sir  William  Temple  —  Long  Prorogation  of 
Parliament — Petitions  and  Addresses  —  Violence  of  the  Commons  —  Oxford  Par 
liament  —  Impeachment  of  Commoners  for  Treason   constitutional  —  Fitzharris 
impeached  —  Proceedings  against  Shaftesbury  and  his  Colleagues  —  Triumph  of 
the  Court  —  Forfeiture  of  Charter  of  London  —  And  of  other  places  — Projects  of 
Lords  Russell  and  Sidney  —  Their  Trials  —  High  Tory  Principles  of  the  Clergy  — 
Passive  Obedience  —  Some  contend  for  Absolute   Power  —  Filmer  —  Sir  George 
Mackenzie  —  Decree  of  "University  of  Oxford — Connection  with  Louis  broken  off 

—  King's  Death. 

THE  period  of  lord  Danby's  administration,  from  ]  673  to 
Earl  of  Dan-  1G78,  was  full  of  chicanery  and  dissimulation  on 
by's  admin-  the  king's  side,  of  increasing  suspiciousness  on  that 
of  the  commons.  Forced  by  the  voice  of  parlia 
ment  and  the  bad  success  of  his  arms  into  peace  with  Hol 
land,  Charles  struggled  hard  against  a  cooperation  with  her 
in  the  great  confederacy  of  Spain  and  the  empire  to  resist' 
the  encroachments  of  France  on  the  Netherlands.  Such 
was  in  that  age  the  strength  of  the  barrier  fortresses,  and  so 
heroic  the  resistance  of  the  prince  of  Orange,  that,  notwith 
standing  the  extreme  weakness  of  Spain,  there  was  no  mo 
ment  in  that  war  when  the  sincere  and  strenuous  interven 
tion  of  England  would  not  have  compelled  Louis  XIV.  to 
accept  the  terms  of  the  treaty  of  Aix  la  Chapelle.  It  was 
the  treacherous  attachment  of  Charles  II.  to  French  inter 
ests  that  brought  the  long  congress  of  Nimeguen  to  an  un 
fortunate  termination  ;  and,  by  surrendering  so  many  towns 
of  Flanders  as  laid  the  rest  open  to  future  aggression,  gave 
rise  to  the  tedious  struggles  of  two  more  wars.1 

1  Temple's  Memoirs. 


CHA.  II.  — 1673-85.   CORRUPTION  OF  PARLIAMENT.     377 

In  the  behavior  of  the  house  of  commons  during  this 
period,  previously  at  least  to  the  session  of  1 678,  Q  ositioa 
there  seems  nothing  which  can  incur  much  repre-  in  the 
hension  from  those  who  reflect  on  the  king's  char-  commons- 
acter  and  intentions  ;  unless  it  be  that  they  granted  supplies 
rather  too  largely,  and  did  not  sufficiently  provide  against 
the  perils  of  the  time.  But  the  house  of  lords  contained, 
unfortunately,  an  invincible  majority  for  the  court,  ready  to 
frustrate  any  legislative  security  for  public  liberty.  Thus 
the  habeas  corpus  act,  first  sent  up  to  that  house  in  1674, 
was  lost  there  in  several  successive  sessions.  The  commons, 
therefore,  testified  their  sense  of  public  grievances,  and  kept 
alive  an  alarm  in  the  nation,  by  resolutions  and  addresses, 
which  a  phlegmatic  reader  is  sometimes  too  apt  to  consider 
as  factious  or  unnecessary.  If  they  seem  to  have  dwelt 
more,  in  some  of  these,  on  the  dangers  of  religion,  and  less 
on  those  of  liberty,  than  we  may  now  think  reasonable,  it  is 
to  be  remembered  that  the  fear  of  popery  has  always  been 
the  surest  string  to  touch  for  effect  on  the  people  ;  and  that 
the  general  clamor  against  that  religion  was  all  covertly  di 
rected  against  the  duke  of  York,  the  most  dangerous  enemy 
of  every  part  of  our  constitution.  The  real  vice  of  Corru  tion 
this  parliament  was  not  intemperance,  but  corrup-  ofthepar- 
tion.  Clifford,  and  still  more  Danby,  were  mas-  liament- 
ters  in  an  art  practised  by  ministers  from  the  time  of  James 
I.  (and  which  indeed  can  never  be  unknown  where  there 
exists  a  court  and  a  popular  assembly),  that  of  turning  to 
their  use  the  weapons  of  mercenary  eloquence  by  office,  or 
blunting  their  edge  by  bribery.1  Some  who  had  been  once 
prominent  in  opposition,  as  sir  Robert  Howard  and  sir 
Richard  Temple,  became  placemen  ;  some,  like  Garraway 
and  sir  Thomas  Lee,  while  they  continued  to  lead  the  coun 
try  party,  took  money  from  the  court  for  softening  particular 
votes  ; 2  many,  as  seems  to  have  been  the  case  with  Reresby, 

l  Burnet  says  that  Danby  bribed  the  their   pensions  ;    but  I   observe   no  one 

less  important  members  instead  of  the  says   he  did  not   always  vote  with    the 

leaders  which   did  not  answer  so   well,  court.     Parl.  Hist.  1137.     North  admits 

But  he  seems  to  have  been  liberal  to  all.  that  great  clamor  was  excited  by  this  dis- 

The  parliament  has  gained  the  name  of  covery  ;  and  well  it  might.    See  also  Dal- 

the  pensioned.     In  that  of  1679  sir  Ste-  rymple,  ii.  92. 

phen  Fox  was  called  upon  to  produce  an  2  Burnet  charges  these  two  leaders  of 

account  of  the  moneys  paid  to  many  of  opposition  with  being  bribed  by  the  court 

their  predecessors.     Those  who  belonged  to  draw  the  house  into  granting  an  enor- 

to  the    new    parliament  endeavored   to  mous   supply,    as   the   consideration   of 

defend  themselves,  and  gave  reasons  for  passing  the  test  act ;  and  see  Popys,  Oct. 


378  CHARACTER  OF  DANBY.  CHAP.  XII. 

were  won  by  promises  and  the  pretended  friendship  of  men 
in  power.1  On  two  great  classes  of  questions,  France  and 
popery,  the  commons  broke  away  from  all  management ;  nor 
was  Danby  unwilling  to  let  his  master  see  their  indocility  on 
these  subjects.  But  in  general,  till  the  year  1678,  by  dint 
of  the  means  before  mentioned,  and  partly  no  doubt  through 
the  honest  conviction  of  many  that  the  king  was  not  likely 
to  employ  any  minister  more  favorable  to  the  protestant  re 
ligion  and  liberties  of  Europe,  he  kept  his  ground  without 
any  insuperable  opposition  from  parliament.2 

The  earl  of  Danby  had  virtues  as  an  English  minister, 
Character  which  served  to  extenuate  some  great  errors  and 
of  the  earl  an  entire  want  of  scrupulousness  in  his  conduct. 
Zealous  against  the  church  of  Rome  and  the  ag 
grandizement  of  France,  he  counteracted,  while  he  seemed 
to  yield  to,  the  prepossessions  of  his  master.  If  the  policy 
of  England  before  the  peace  of  Nimeguen  was  mischievous 
and  disgraceful,  it  would  evidently  have  been  far  more  so 
had  the  king  and  duke  of  York  been  abetted  by  this  minis 
ter  in  their  fatal  predilection  for  France.  We  owe  to  Danby's 
influence,  it  must  ever  be  remembered,  the  marriage  of  prin 
cess  Mary  to  the  prince  of  Orange,  the  seed  of  the  revolu 
tion  and  the  act  of  settlement  —  a  courageous  and  disinter 
ested  counsel,  which  ought  not  to  have  proved  the  source  of 
his  greatest  misfortunes.3  But  we  cannot  pretend  to  say 

6,  1666.      Sir   Robert    Howard  and  sir  lished;   that,  if  the  government  was  in 

Richard  Temple  were  said  to  have  gone  any  danger,  it  was  from  those  who  pre- 

over  to  the  court  in  1670  through  similar  tended  such  a  mighty  zeal   for  it.     On 

inducements.    Ralph.    Roger  North  (Ex-  finding  him  well  disposed,  Danby   took 

amen,  p.  456)  gives  an  account  of  the  his  proselyte  to  the  king,  who  assured 

manner  in  which  men  were  brought  off  him  of  his  regard  for  the  constitution, 

from  the  opposition,  though  it  was  some-  and  was  right  loyally  believed.    Reresby's 

times  advisable  to  let   them   nominally  Memoirs,  p.  36. 

continue  in  it;  and  mentions  Lee,  Garra-  2  "  There  were  two  things,"  says  bish- 

way,  and  Meres,  all  very  active  patriots,  op  Parker,  "  which,  like  Circe's  cup,  be- 

if  we  trust  to  the  parliamentary  debates,  witched    men    and    turned     them    into 

But,  after  all,  neither  Burnet  nor  Roger  brutes,  viz.  popery  and  French  interest. 

North  are  wholly  to  be  relied  on  as  to  If  men  otherwise  sober  heard  them  once, 

particular  instances  ;  though  the  general  it  was  sufficient  to  make  them  run  mad. 

fact  of  au  extensive  corruption  be  indie-  But,  when  those  things  were  laid  aside, 

putable.  their  behavior  to  his  majesty  was  with  a 

i  This  cunning,    self-interested    man,  becoming  modesty."     P.  244.    Whenever 

who  had  been  introduced  to  the  house  by  the  court  seemed  to  fall  in  with  the  na- 

lord  Russell  and  lord  Cavendish,  and  was  tional  interests  on  the  two  points  of  France 

connected  with  the  country  party,  tells  and  popery,  many  of  the  country  party 

us  that  Danby  sent  for  him  in  Feb.  1677,  voted   with    them    on    other    questions, 

and  assured  him  that  the  jealousies  of  though  more  numerous  than  their  own. 

that  party  were  wholly  without  founda-  Temple,  p.  458.     See,  too,  Reresby,  p.  25, 

tion  ;  that,  to  his  certain  knowledge,  the  et  alibi. 

king  meant  no  other  than  to  preserve  the  3  The  king,  according  to  James  himself, 

religion  and  government  by  law  estab-  readily  consented  to  the  marriage  of  the 


CHA.  II.  — 1073-85        HIS   CONDUCT  AS  MINISTER. 


379 


that  he  was  altogether  as  sound  a  friend  to  the  constitution 
of  his  country  as  to  her  national  dignity  and  interests.  I  do 
not  mean  that  he  wished  to  render  the  king  absolute.  But  a 
minister,  harassed  and  attacked  in  parliament,  is  tempted  to 
desire  the  means  of  crushing  his  opponents,  or  at  least  of 
augmenting  his  own  sway.  The  mischievous  bill  that  passed 
the  house  of  lords  in  1675,  imposing  as  a  test  to  be  taken  by 
both  houses  of  parliament,  as  well  as  all  holding  beneficed 
offices,  a  declaration  that  resistance  to  persons  commissioned 
by  the  king  was  in  all  cases  unlawful,  and  that  they  would 
never  attempt  any  alteration  in  the  government  in  church  or 
state,  was  promoted  by  Danby,  though  it  might  possibly  orig 
inate  with  others.1  It  was  apparently  meant  as  a  bone  of 
contention  among  the  country  party,  in  which  presbyterians 
and  old  parliamentarians  were  associated  with  discontented 
cavaliers.  Besides  the  mischief  of  weakening  this  party, 
which  indeed  the  minister  could  not  fairly  be  expected  to 
feel,  nothing  could  have  been  devised  more  unconstitutional, 
or  more  advantageous  to  the  court's  projects  of  arbitrary 
power. 


princess,  when  it  was  first  suggested  in 
1675  ;  the  difficulty  was  with  her  father. 
He  gave  at  last  a  reluctant  consent ;  and 
the  offer  was  made  by  lords  Arlington 
and  Ossory  to  the  prince  of  Orange,  who 
received  it  coolly.  Life  of  James,  501. 
Temple's  Memoirs,  p.  397.  When  lie 
came  over  to  England  in  Oct.  1677,  with 
the  intention  of  effecting  the  match,  the 
king  and  duke  wished  to  defer  it  till  the 
conclusion  of  the  treaty  then  in  negotia 
tion  at  Nimeguen;  but  "the  obstinacy 
of  the  prince,  with  the  assistance  of  the 
treasurer,  who  from  that  time  entered 
into  the  measures  and  interests  of  the 
prince,  prevailed  upon  the  flexibility  of 
the  king  to  let  the  marriage  be  first  agreed 
and  concluded."  P.  508.  [If  we  may 
trust  Reresby,  which  is  not  perhaps  al 
ways  the  case,  the  duke  of  York  had  hopes 
of  marrying  the  princess  Mary  to  the 
Dauphin,  thus  rendering  England  a  prov 
ince  of  France,  Keresby's  Memoirs,  p. 
109.  — 1845.] 

1  Kennet.  p.  332.  North's  Examen, 
p.  61.  Burnet.  This  test  was  covertly 
meant  against  the  Romish  party,  as  well 
as  more  openly  against  the  dissenters. 
Life  of  James,  p.  499.  Danby  set  himself 
up  as  the  patron  of  the  church  party  and 
old  cavaliers  against  the  two  opposing  re 
ligions,  trusting  that  they  were  stronger 
in  the  house  of  commons.'  But  the  times 


were  so  changed  that  the  same  men  had 
no  longer  the  same  principles,  and  the 
house  would  listen  to  no  measures  against 
non-conformists.  He  propitiated,  how 
ever,  the  prelates,  by  renewing  the  perse 
cution  under  the  existing  laws,  which 
had  been  relaxed  by  the  cabal  ministry. 
Baxter.  156,  172.  Kennet,  331.  Neal, 
698.  Somers  Tracts,  vii.  336. 

Meanwhile,  schemes  of  comprehension 
were  sometimes  on  foot ;  and  the  prelates 
affected  to  be  desirous  of  bringing  about 
an  union  ;  but  Morley  and  Sheldon  frus 
trated  them  all.  Baxter.  156;  Kennet, 
326 ;  Parker.  25.  The  bishops,  however, 
were  not  uniformly  intolerant :  Croft, 
bishop  of  Hereford,  published,  about 
1675,  a  tract  that  made  some  noise,  en 
titled  The  Naked  Truth,  for  the  purpose 
of  moderating  differences.  It  is  not  writ 
ten  with  extraordinary  ability,  but  is 
very  candid  and  well  designed,  though 
conceding  so  much  as  to  scandalize  his 
brethren.  Somers  Tracts,  vii.  268 ;  Biogr. 
Brit.,  art.  CROFT,  where  the  book  is  ex 
travagantly  overpraised.  Croft  was  one 
of  the  few  bishops  who,  being  then  very 
old,  advised  his  clergy  to  read  James  II. 's 
declaration  in  1687  ;  thinking,  I  suppose, 
though  in  those  circumstances  errone 
ously,  that  toleration  was  so  good  a  thing, 
it  was  better  to  have  it  irregularly  than 
not  at  all. 


380  CONNECTION  OF    POPULAR  PARTY       CHAP.  XII. 

It  is  certainly  possible  that  a  minister  who,  aware  of  the 
dangerous  intentions  of  his  sovereign  or  his  colleagues,  re 
mains  in  the  cabinet  to  thwart  and  countermine  them,  may 
serve  the  public  more  effectually  than  by  retiring  from  office ; 
but  he  will  scarcely  succeed  in  avoiding  some  material  sac 
rifices  of  integrity,  and  still  less  of  reputation.  Danby,  the 
ostensible  adviser  of  Charles  II.,  took  on  himself  the  just 
odium  of  that  hollow  and  suspicious  policy  which  appeared 
to  the  world.  We  know  indeed  that  he  was  concerned, 
against  his  own  judgment,  in  the  king's  secret  receipt  of 
money  from  France,  the  price  of  neutrality,  both  in  1676 
and  1678,  the  latter  to  his  own  ruin.1  Could  the  opposition, 
though  not  so  well  apprized  of  these  transactions  as  we  are, 
be  censured  for  giving  little  credit  to  his  assurances  of  zeal 
against  that  power  ;  which,  though  sincere  in  him,  were  so 
little  in  unison  with  the  disposition  of  the  court  ?  Had  they 
no  cause  to  dread  that  the  great  army  suddenly  raised  in 
1677,  on  pretence  of  being  employed  against  France,  might 
be  turned  to  some  worse  purposes  more  congenial  to  the 
king's  temper  ?  2 

This  invincible  distrust  of  the  court  is  the  best  apology  for 
Connection  *na^  wn^cn  nas  given  rise  to  so  much  censure, 
ofthepopu-  the  secret  connections  formed  by  the  leaders  of 
witKrance.  opposition  with  Louis  XIV.,  through  his  ambas- 
its  motives  sadors  Barillon  and  Rouvigny,  about  the  spring 

011  both  sides.     c   .,  ^-0  o      m  „  ,  R    V    ,       ,  .       ,      ,  L  . 

or  1678.      I  hey  well  knew  that  the  kings  designs 

1  Charles  received  500,000  crowns  for  army.     It  is  impossible   to  doubt,  from 
the  long  prorogation  of  parliament,  from  Barillon's  correspondence  in  Dalrymple, 
Nov.  1675  to  Feb.  1677.    In  the  begin-  that   the  king  and  duke  looked  to  this 
ning  of   the  year   1676  the    two  kings  force  as  the  means  of  consolidating  the 
bound  themselves  by  a  formal  treaty  (to  royal  authority.     This  was  suspected  at 
which  Danby   and  Lauderdale,  but  not  home,  and  very  justly:  —  "Many  well- 
Coventry  or  Williamson,  were  privy)  not  meaning  men.;'  says  Reresby,  "  began  to 
to  enter  on  any  treaties  but  by  mutual  fear  the  army  now  raised  was  rather  in- 
consent ;  and  Charles  promised,  in  con-  tended  to  awe  our  own  kingdom  than  to 
sideration  of  a  pension,  to   prorogue  or  war  against  France,  as  had  at  first  been 
dissolve  parliament,  if  they  should    at-  suggested :';     p.    62.     And  in  a  former 
tempt  to  force  such  treaties  upon  him.  passage,  p.  57.   he  positively   attributes 
Dairy  in  pie,  p.  99.     Danby  tried  to  break  the  opposition  to  the  French  war  in  1678 
this  off,  but  did  not  hesitate  to  press  the  to  "  a  jealousy  that  the  king  indeed  in- 
French    cabinet   for    the    money  ;    and  tended  to  raise  an  army,  but  never  de- 
200.000/.  was   paid.     The   prince   of  Or-  signed  to    go  on  with  the  war;  and,  to 
ange  came  afterwards   through   Rouvig-  say  the  truth,  some  of  the  king's  own 
ny  to  a  knowledge  of  this  secret  treaty,  party   were  not  very   sure   of  the   con- 
P.  117.  trary." 

2  This  army  consisted  of  between  twen-  3  Dalrymple,  p.    129.     The  immediate 
ty  and    thirty   thousand    men,   as  fine  cause  of  those  intrigues  was  the  indigna- 
troops  as  could  be  seen  (Life  of  James,  tion  of  Louis  at  the  princess  Mary's  mar- 
p.  512)  —  an  alarming  sight  to  those  who  riage.     That  event,  which,  as  we  know 
denied  the  lawfulness  of  any   standing  from  James  himself,  was  very  suddenly 


CHA.  II.  — 1673-85. 


WITH  FRANCE. 


381 


against  their  liberties  had  been  planned  in  concert  with 
France,  and  could  hardly  be  rendered  effectual  without  her 
aid  in  money,  if  not  in  arms.1  If  they  could  draw  over  this 
dangerous  ally  from  his  side,  and  convince  the  king  of  France 
that  it  was  not  his  interest  to  crush  their  power,  they  would 
at  least  frustrate  the  suspected  conspiracy,  and  secure  the  dis 
banding  of  the  army ;  though  at  a  great  sacrifice  of  the  con 
tinental  policy  which  they  had  long  maintained,  and  which 
was  truly  important  to  our  honor  and  safety.  Yet  there 
must  be  degrees  in  the  scale  of  public  utility  ;  and,  if  the 
liberties  of  the  people  were  really  endangered  by  domestic 
treachery,  it  was  ridiculous  to  think  of  saving  Tournay  and 
Valenciennes  at  the  expense  of  all  that  was  dearest  at  home. 
This  is  plainly  the  secret  of  that  unaccountable,  as  it  then 
seemed,  and  factious  opposition,  in  the  year  1678,  which 
cannot  be  denied  to  have  served  the  ends  of  France,  and 
thwarted  the  endeavors  of  lord  Dauby  and  sir  William 
Temple  to  urge  on  the  uncertain  and  half-reluctant  temper 
of  the  king  into  a  decided  course  of  policy.2  Louis,  in  fact, 


brought  about,  took  the  king  of  France 
by  surprise.  Charles  apologized  for  it  to 
Barillon,  by  saying,  '•  I  am  the  only  one 
of  my  party,  except  my  brother."  P.  125. 
This,  in  fact,  was  the  secret  of  his  ap 
parent  reliuf£uishment  of  French  inter 
ests  at  different  times  in  the  latter  years 
of  his  reign  ;  he  found  it  hard  to  kick 
constantly  against  the  pricks,  and  could 
employ  no  minister  who  went  cordially 
along  with  his  predilections.  He  seems 
too  at  times,  as  well  as  the  duke  of  York, 
to  have  been  seriously  provoked  at  the 
unceasing  encroachments  of  France, 
which  exposed  him  to  so  much  vexation 
at  Rome^ 

The  connection  with  lords  Russell  and 
Hollis  began  in  March,  1678,  though 
some  of  the  opposition  had  been  making 
advances  to  Barillon  in  the  preceding 
November:  pp.129. 131.  See  also  "  Copies 
and  Extracts  of  some  Letters  written  to 
him  from  the  Earl  of  Danby,"  published 
in  1716.  whence  it  appears  that  Montagu 
suspected  the  intrigues  of  Barillon.  and 
the  mission  of  Rouvigny,  lady  Russell's 
first-cousin,  for  the  same  purpose,  as 
early  as  Jan.  1678,  and  informed  Dauby 
of  it:  pp.  50,53,59. 

1  Courtin,  the  French  ambassador 
who  preceded  Barillon,  had  been  engaged 
through  great  part  of  the  year  1677  in  a 
treaty  with  Charles  for  the  prorogation 
or  dissolution  of  Parliament.  After  a 
long  chaffering,  the  sum  was  fixed  at 


2,000,000  livres  ;  in  consideration  of 
which  the  king  of  England  pledged  him 
self  to  prorogue  parliament  from  Decem 
ber  to  April,  1678.  It  was  in  conse 
quence  of  the  subsidy  being  stopped  by 
Louis,  in  resentment  of  the  princess 
Mary's  marriage,  that  parliament,  which 
had  been  already  prorogued  till  April, 
was  suddenly  assembled  in  February. 
Dalrymple,  p.  111.  It  appears  that  Cour 
tin  had  employed  French  money  to  bribe 
members  of  the  commons  in  1677  with 
the  knowledge  of  Charles,  assigning  as 
a  reason  that  Spain  and  the  emperor 
were  distributing  money  on  the  other 
side.  In  the  course  of  this  negotiation 
he  assured  Charles  that  the  king  of 
France  was  always  ready  to  employ  all 
his  forces  for  the  confirmation  and  aug 
mentation  of  the  royal  authority  in  Eng 
land,  so  that  he  should  always  be  master 
of  his  subjects,  and  not  depend  upon 
them . 

2  See  what  Temple  says  of  this,  p.  460. 
The  king  raised  20,000  men  in  the  spring 
of  1678,  and  seemed  ready  to  go  into  the 
war  ;  but  all  was  spoiled  by  a  vote,  on 
Clarges's  motion,  that  no  money  should 
be  granted  till  satisfaction  should  be 
made  as  to  religion.  This  irritated  the 
king  so  much  that  he  determined  to  take 
the  money  which  France  offered  him ; 
and  he  afterwards  almost  compelled  the 
Dutch  to  sign  the  treaty ;  so  much 
against  the  prince  of  Orange's  inclina- 


382  MOTIVES   OF   LOUIS   XIV.  CHAP.  XII. 

had  no  desire  to  see  the  king  of  England  absolute  over  his  peo 
ple,  unless  it  could  be  done  so  much  by  his  own  help  as  to 
render  himself  the  real  master  of  both.  In  the  estimate  of 
kings,  or  of  such  kings  as  Louis  XIV.,  all  limitations  of  sov 
ereignty,  all  coordinate  authority  of  estates  and  parliaments, 
are  not  only  derogatory  to  the  royal  dignity,  but  injurious  to 
the  state  itself,  of  which  they  distract  the  councils  and  ener 
vate  the  force.  Great  armies,  prompt  obedience,  unlimited 
power  over  the  national  resources,  secresy  in  council,  rapid 
ity  in  execution,  belong  to  an  energetic  and  enlightened  des 
potism  :  we  should  greatly  err  in  supposing  that  Louis  XIV. 
was  led  to  concur  in  projects  of  subverting  our  constitution 
from  any  jealousy  of  its  contributing  to  our  prosperity.  He 
saw,  on  the  contrary,  in  the  perpetual  jarring  of  the  kings 
and  parliaments,  a  source  of  feebleness  and  vacillation  in 
foreign  affairs,  and  a  field  for  intrigue  and  corruption.  It 
was  certainly  far  from  his  design  to  see  a  republic,  either  in 
name  or  effect,  established  in  England  ;  but  an  unanimous 
loyalty,  a  spontaneous  submission  to  the  court,  was  as  little 
consonant  to  his  interests  ;  and,  especially  if  accompanied 
with  a  willing  return  of  the  majority  to  the  catholic  religion, 
would  have  put  an  end  to  his  influence  over  the  king,  and 
still  more  certainly  over  the  duke  of  York.1  He  had  long 
been  sensible  of  the  advantage  to  be  reaped  from  a  malecon- 
tent  party  in  England.  In  the  first  years  after  the  restora 
tion  he  kept  up  a  connection  with  the  disappointed  common 
wealth's  men,  while  their  courage  was  yet  fresh  and  unsub- 

tiona,  that  he  has  often  been  charged,  the  duke,  to  pull  down  the  ministers, 

though    unjustly,    with    having   fought  and  to  weaken  the  crown."     P.  512. 

the  battle  of  St.    Denis   after  he   knew  In  defence  of  the  commons  it  is  to  be 

that   the   peace  was  concluded.     Danby  urged  that,  if  they  had  any  strong  sus- 

also,    in    his   Vindication  (published   in  picion   of   the   king's    private    intrigues 

1679,    and    again     in     1710  —  see    State  with  France  for  some  years  past,  as  in 

Trials,   ii.    634),   lays   the  blame  of  dis-  all   likelihood   they  had,   common   pru- 

couraging  the  king  from  embarking  in  dence  would  teach  them  to  distrust  his 

the  war  on  this  vote  of  the  commons,  pretended  desire  for  war  with  her;  and 

And  the  author  of  the  Life  of  James  II.  it  is,  in  fact,  most  probable  that  his  real 

says  very  truly  that  the  commons  "  were  object  was  to  be  master  of  a  considerable 

in  reality  more   jealous   of   the    king's  army. 

power  than  of  the  power  of  France  ;  for,  1  The   memorial  of  Blanchard  to  the 

notwithstanding  all   their  former  warm  prince  of  Orange,  quoted  by  Dalrymple, 

addresses  for  hindering   the  growth  of  p.  201,  contains   these  words  :    '•  Le  roi 

the  power  of  France,  when  the  king  had  auroit  etc  bien  fache  qu'il  cut  etc  absolu 

no  army,   now   that   he  had    one    they  dans  ses  etats  ;  1'uue  de  ses  plus  constan- 

passed   a  vote    to   have   it   immediately  tes  maximes  depuis   son   retablissement 

disbanded  ;     and     the    factious     party,  ayant  etc  de  le  diviser  d:avec  son  parle- 

which  was  then  prevalent  among  them,  ment,   et   de   se  servir    tautot   de   1'un, 

made  it  their  only  business  to  be  rid  of  tantot  de  1'autre,   toujours   par  argent 

pour  parveuir  a  ses  fins." 


CHA.  II.  — 1073-85.      OF  IIOLLIS   AXD  RUSSELL.  383 

dued  ;  and  in  the  war  of  1665  was  very  nearly  exciting  in 
surrections  both  in  England  and  Ireland.1  These  schemes  of 
course  were  suspended  as  he  grew  into  closer  friendship  with 
Charles,  and  saw  a  surer  method  of  preserving  an  ascen 
dency  over  the  kingdom.  But,  as  soon  as  the  princess  Mary's 
marriage,  contrary  to  the  king  of  England's  promise,  and  to 
the  plain  intent  of  all  their  clandestine  negotiations,  displayed 
his  faithless  and  uncertain  character  to  the  French  cabinet, 
they  determined  to  make  the  patriotism,  the  passion,  and  the 
corruption  of  the  house  of  commons,  minister  to  their  resent 
ment  and  ambition. 

The  views  of  lord  Hollis  and  lord  Russell  in  this  clandes 
tine  intercourse  with  the  French  ambassador  were  sincerely 
patriotic  and  honorable  :  to  detach  France  from  the  king  ;  to 
crush  the  duke  of  York  and  popish  faction  ;  to  procure  the 
disbanding  of  the  army,  the  dissolution  of  a  corrupted  parlia 
ment,  the  dismissal  of  a  bad  minister.2  They  would  indeed 
have  displayed  more  prudence  in  leaving  these  dark  and  dan 
gerous  paths  of  intrigue  to  the  court  which  was  practised 
in  them.  They  were  concerting  measures  with  the  natural 
enemy  of  their  country,  religion,  honor,  and  liberty  ;  whose 
obvious  policy  was  to  keep  the  kingdom  disunited  that  it 
might  be  powerless  ;  who  had  been  long  abetting  the  worst 
designs  of  our  own  court,  and  who  could  never  be  expected 
to  act  against  popery  and  despotism,  but  for  the  temporary 
ends  of  his  ambition.  Yet,  in  the  very  critical  circumstances 
of  that  period,  it  was  impossible  to  pursue  any  course  with 
security ;  and  the  dangers  of  excessive  circumspection  and 

1  Ralph,    p.    116.      (Euvres    cte    Louis  traine   par  M.  le  due  d'York  et  par  le 
XIV.  ii.  204.  and  v.  67,  where  we  have  grand   tresorier  ;    mais    dans   le  fond   il 
a  curious  and  characteristic  letter  of  the  aimeroit  mieux   que   la  paix  le  mit  en 
king  to  d'Estrades  in  Jan.  1662,  when  he  etat  de  demeurer  en  repos,  et  retablir  ses 
had   been   provoked  by  some  high  Ian-  affaires,  c'est-a-dire,  un  bon  revenu;  et 
gunge   Clarendon    had   held    about    the  je  crois  qu'il  ne  se  soucie  pas  beaucoup 
right  of  the  flag.  d'etre  plus  absolu  qu'il  est.     Le  due  et 

2  The  letters  of  Barillon  in  Dalrymple,  le  tresorier  connoissent  bien  i  qui  ils  ont 
pp.  134.  136,  140.  are  sufficient  proofs  of  affaire,  et  craignent  d'etre   abandonnes 
this.     He  imputes  to  Danby  in  one  place,  par  le  roi  d'Augleterrc  aux  premiers  ob- 
p.  142,  the  design  of  making  the  king  stacles   considerables    qu'ils    trouveront 
absolute,  and  says  :  "  M.  le  due  d'York  au  dessein  de  relever  I'autorite  royale  en 
se  croit  perdu  pour  sa  religion,  si  1'occa-  Angleterre."     On  this  passage  it  may  be 
sion  presente   ne    lui    sert  &  soumettre  observed  that  there  is  reason  to  believe 
1' Angleterre  ;   c'est   une  entreprise   fort,  there  was  no  cooperation,  but  rather  a 
bardie,  et  dont   le  succes  est  fort  dou-  great  distrust,  at  this  time  between  the 
teux."     Of  Charles  himself  he  says,  %>  Le  duke  of    York  and    lord   Danby.      But 
roi    d'Angleterre    balance    encore    a    se  Barillon  had  no  doubt  taken  care  to  in- 
porter  i  1'extremite ;    son   humeur    re-  fuse  into   the   minds    of  the  opposition 
pugne  fort    au    d<jssein    de  changer    le  those   suspicions  of  that  minister's  de- 
go  uveruemeut.      II    est    neaimioins    en-  signs. 


384    DOUBTS  AS  TO  ACCEPTANCE  OF  MONEY   CHAP.  XII. 

adherence  to  general  rules  may  often  be  as  formidable  as 
those  of  temerity.  The  connection  of  the  popular  party  with 
France  may  very  probably  have  frustrated  the  sinister  inten 
tions  of  the  king  and  duke,  by  compelling  the  reduction  of 
the  army,  though  at  the  price  of  a  great  sacrifice  of  European 
policy.1  Such  may  be,  with  unprejudiced  men,  a  sufficient 
apology  for  the  conduct  of  lord  Russell  and  lord  Hollis,  the 
most  public-spirited  and  high-minded  characters  of  their  age, 
in  this  extraordinary  and  unnatural  alliance.  It  would  have 
been  unworthy  of  their  virtue  to  have  gone  into  so  desperate 
an  intrigue  with  no  better  aim  than  that  of  ruining  lord  Dan- 
by  ;  and  of  this  I  think  we  may  fully  acquit  them.  The  noble 
ness  of  Russell's  disposition  beams  forth  in  all  that  Barillon 
has  written  of  their  conferences.  Yet,  notwithstanding  the 
plausible  grounds  of  his  conduct,  we  can  hardly  avoid  wishing 
that  he  had  abstained  from  so  dangerous  an  intercourse,  which 
led  him  to  impair,  in  the  eyes  of  posterity,  by  something  more 
like  faction  than  can  be  ascribed  to  any  other  part  of  his  par 
liamentary  life,  the  consistency  and  ingenuousness  of  his  char 
acter.2 

I  have  purposely  mentioned  lord  Russell  and  lord  Hollis 
Doubt  as  to  al)art  fr°m  others  who  were  mingled  in  the  same 
the  accept-  intrigues  of  the  French  ambassador,  both  because 
moneyfby  tnc7  were  among  the  first  with  whom  he  tampered, 
the  popular  and  because  they  are  honorably  distinguished  by 
their  abstinence  from  all  pecuniary  remuneration, 
which  Hollis  refused,  and  which  Barillon  did  not  presume  to 
offer  to  Russell.  It  appears,  however,  from  this  minister's  ac 
counts  of  the  money  he  had  expended  in  this  secret  service 
of  the  French  crown,  that,  at  a  later  time,  namely  about  the 
end  of  1680,  many  of  the  leading  members  of  opposition,  sir 
Thomas  Littleton,  Mr.  Garraway,  Mr.  Hampden,  Mr.  Powle, 
Mr.  Sacheverell,  Mr.  Foley,  received  sums  of  500  or  300 
guineas,  as  testimonies  of  the  king  of  France's  munificence 
and  favor.  Among  others,  Algernon  Sidney,  who,  though 
not  in  parliament,  was  very  active  out  of  it,  is  more  than 
once  mentioned.  Chiefly  because  the  name  of  Algernon 

l  Barillon  appears  to  have  favored  the  2  This  delicate  subject  is  treated  with 

opposition  rather  than  the  duke  of  York,  great  candor  as  well  as  judgment  by  lord 

who  urged  the  keeping  up  of  the  army.  John  Russell,  in  his  Life  of  William  Lord 

This   was   also   the   great   object  of  the  Kussell. 
king,  who  very  reluctantly  disbanded  it 
in  Jan.  1679.    Dalrymple,  207,  &c. 


CHA.  II.  — 1673-85.  BY   POPULAR   PARTY.  385 

Sidney  had  been  associated  with  the  most  stern  and  elevated 
virtue,  this  statement  was  received  with  great  reluctance  ;  and 
many  have  ventured  to  call  the  truth  of  these  pecuniary 
gratifications  in  question.  This  is  certainly  a  bold  surmise ; 
though  Barillon  is  known  to  have  been  a  man  of  luxurious 
and  expensive  habits,  and  his  demands  for  more  money  on  ac 
count  of  the  English  court,  which  continually  occur  in  his  cor 
respondence  with  Louis,  may  lead  to  a  suspicion  that  he  would 
be  in  some  measure  a  gainer  by  it.  This,  however,  might 
possibly  be  the  case  without  actual  peculation.  But  it  must 
be  observed  that  there  are  two  classes  of  those  who  are  al 
leged  to  have  received  presents  through  his  hands  :  one,  of 
such  as  were  in  actual  communication  with  himself;  another, 
of  such  as  sir  John  Baber,  a  secret  agent,  had  prevailed  upon 
to  accept  it.  Sidney  was  in  the  first  class ;  but  as  to  the 
second,  comprehending  Littleton,  Hampden,  Sacheverell,  in 
whom  it  is,  for  different  reasons,  as  difficult  to  suspect  pecun 
iary  corruption  as  in  him,  the  proof  is  manifestly  weaker, 
depending  only  on  the  assertion  of  an  intriguer  that  he  had 
paid  them  the  money.  The  falsehood  either  of  Baber  or 
Barillon  would  acquit  these  considerable  men.  Nor  is  it  to 
be  reckoned  improbable  that  persons  employed  in  this  clan 
destine  service  should  be  guilty  of  a  fraud,  for  which  they 
could  evidently  never  be  made  responsible.  We  have  indeed 
a  remarkable  confession  of  Coleman,  the  famous  intriguer 
executed  for  the  popish  plot,  to  this  effect,  lie  deposed  in 
his  examination  before  the  house  of  commons,  in  November, 
1678,  that  he  had  received  last  session  of  Barillon  2500/.  to 
be  distributed  among  members  of  parliament,  which  he  had 
converted  to  his  own  use.1  It  is  doubtless  possible  that  Cole- 
man,  having  actually  expended  this  money  in  the  manner  in 
tended,  bespoke  the  favor  of  those  whose  secret  lie  kept  by 
taking  the  discredit  of  such  a  fraud  on  himself.  But  it  is 
also  possible  that  he  spoke  the  truth.  A  similar  uncertainty 
hangs  over  the  transactions  of  sir  John  Baber.  Nothing  in 
the  parliamentary  conduct  of  the  above-mentioned  gentlemen 
in  1680  corroborates  the  suspicion  of  an  intrigue  with  France, 
whatever  may  have  been  the  case  in  1678. 

I  must  fairly  confess,  however,  that  the  decided  bias  of  my 
own  mind  is  on  the  affirmative  side  of  this  question  ;  and 
that  principally  because  I  am  not  so  much  struck  as  some 

i  P.irl.  Hist.  H.i.35  :  D.ilr,  inple,  200. 
VOL.   II.  -2-3 


386  CONDUCT   OF   SIDNEY.  CHAP.  XII 

have  been  by  any  violent  improbability  in  what  Barillon 
wrote  to  his  court  on  the  subject.  If  indeed  we  were  to  read 
•  that  Algernon  Sidney  had  been  bought  over  by  Louis  XIV. 
or  Charles  II.  to  assist  in  setting  up  absolute  monarchy  in 
England,  we  might  fairly  oppose  our  knowledge  of  his  inflex 
ible  and  haughty  character,  of  his  zeal,  in  life  and  death,  for 
republican  liberty.  But  there  is,  I  presume,  some  moral  dis 
tinction  between  the  acceptance  of  a  bribe  to  desert  or  betray 
our  principles,  and  that  of  a  trifling  present  for  acting  in  con 
formity  to  them.  The  one  is,  of  course,  to  be  styled  corrup 
tion  ;  the  other  is  repugnant  to  a  generous  and  delicate  mind, 
but  too  much  sanctioned  by  the  practice  of  an  age  far  less 
scrupulous  than  our  own,  to  have  carried  with  it  anv  great 
self-reproach  or  sense  of  degradation.  It  is  truly  inconceiv 
able  that  men  of  such  property  as  sir  Thomas  Littleton  or 
Mr.  Foley  should  have  accepted  300  or  500  guineas,  the 
sums  mentioned  by  Barillon,  as  the  price  of  apostasy  from 
those  political  principles  to  which  they  owed  the  esteem  of 
their  country,  or  of  an  implicit  compliance  with  the  dictates 
of  France.  It  is  sufficiently  discreditable  to  the  times  in 
which  they  lived  that  they  should  have  accepted  so  pitiful  a 
gratuity  ;  unless  indeed  we  should  in  candor  resort  to  an  hy 
pothesis  which  seems  not  absurd,  that  they  agreed  among 
themselves  not  to  offend  Louis,  or  excite  his  distrust,  by  a 
refusal  of  this  money.  Sidney  indeed  was,  as  there  is  reason 
to  think,  a  distressed  man  ;  he  had  formerly  been  in  connec 
tion  with  the  court  of  France,1  and  had  persuaded  himself 
that  the  countenance  of  that  power  might  one  day  or  other 
be  afforded  to  his  darling  scheme  of  a  commonwealth ;  he 
had  contracted  a  dislike  to  the  prince  of  Orange,  and  conse 
quently  to  the  Dutch  alliance,  from  the  same  governing 
motive ;  it  is  strange  that  one  so  circumstanced  should  have 


l  Louis  XIV.  tells  us  that  Sidney  had  sessed  either  practical  good  sense   or  a 

made  proposals  to  France  in  1666  for  an  just  appreciation  of  the  public  interests; 

insurrection,  and  asked  100.000  crowns  to  and   his   influence   over   the  whig  party 

effect  it,  which  was  thought   too  much  appears  to  have  been  entirely  mischievous, 

for  an  experiment.     He  tried  to  persuade  though  he  was  not  only  a  much  better 

the  ministers  that  it  was  against  the  in-  man  than  Shaftesbury,  which  is  no  high 

terest  of    France  that  England    should  praise,  but  than  the  greater  number  of 

continue  a  monarchy.     (Euvres  de  Louis  that  faction,  as  they  must  be  called,  not- 

XIV.,   ii.   204.       [Sidney's   partiality   to  withstanding  their  services  to  liberty.    A 

France  displays  itself  in  his  Letters    to  Tract  on  Love  by  Algernon  Sidney,  in 

Saville,   in    1679,   published    by    Hollis.  Somers's  Tracts,  viii.  612,  displays  an  al- 

They  evince  also  a  blind  credulity  in  the  most  Platonic  elegance  and  delicacy  of 

popish  plot.     The  whole  of  Sidney's  con-  mind.  —  1845-] 
duct  is  inconsistent  with  his  having  pos- 


CHA.  II.— 1G73-85.      SECRET   TREATIES   WITH  FRANCE.      387 

accepted  a  small  gratification  from  the  king  of  France  which 
implied  no  dereliction  of  his  duty  as  an  Englishman,  or  any 
sacrifice  of  political  integrity  ?  And  I  should  be  glad  to  be 
informed  by  the  idolaters  of  Algernon  Sidney's  name,  what 
we  know  of  him  from  authentic  and  contemporary  sources 
which  renders  this  incredible. 

France,  in  the  whole  course  of  these  intrigues,  held  the 
jrame  in  her  hands.    Mistress  of  both  parties,  she 

Secret 

might  either  embarrass  the  king  through  parlia-  treaties  of 
ment,  if  he  pretended  to  an  independent  course  of  ^^"J nce 
policy,  or  cast  away  the  latter  when  he  should  re 
turn  to  his  former  engagements.  Hence,  as  early  as  May, 
1678,  a  private  treaty  was  set  on  foot  between  Charles  and 
Louis,  by  which  the  former  obliged  himself  to  keep  a  neu 
trality,  if  the  allies  should  not  accept  the  terms  offered  by 
France,  to  recall  all  his  troops  from  Flanders  within  two 
months,  to  disband  most  of  his  army,  and  not  to  assemble 
his  parliament  for  six  months :  in  return  he  was  to  receive 
6,000,000  livres.  This  was  signed  by  the  king  himself  on 
May  '27  ;  none  of  his  ministers  venturing  to  affix  their 
names.1  Yet  at  this  time  he  was  making  outward  profes 
sions  of  an  intention  to  carry  on  the  war.  Even  in  this 
secret  treaty,  so  thorough  was  his  insincerity,  he  meant  to 
evade  one  of  its  articles,  that  of  disbanding  his  troops.  In 
this  alone  he  was  really  opposed  to  the  wishes  of  France  ; 
and  her  pertinacity  in  disarming  him  seems  to  have  been  the 
chief  source  of  those  capricious  changes  of  his  disposition 
which  we  find  for  three  or  four  years  at  this  period.2  Louis 
again  appears  not  only  to  have  mistrusted  the  king's  own 
inclinations  after  the  prince  of  Orange's  marriage,  and  his 
ability  to  withstand  the  eagerness  of  the  nation  for  war, 
but  to  have  apprehended  that  he  might  become  absolute  by 
means  of  his  army,  without  standing  indebted  for  it  to  his 
ancient  ally.  In  this  point  therefore  he  faithfully  served  the 
popular  party.  Charles  used  every  endeavor  to  evade  this 
condition  ;  whether  it  were  that  he  still  entertained  hopes 
of  obtaining  arbitrary  power  through  intimidation,  or  that, 

1  Dalrymple,  162.  or  does  he  think  that  a  matter  to  be  done 

2  His  exclamation  at  Barillon's  press-  with  8000  men?  "      Temple    says,  '•  He 
ing  the  reduction    of  the  army  to  8000  seemed  at  this  time  (May.  1678)  "more  re- 
men  is  well  known.     "  God's  fish  !  are  all  solved  to  enter  into  the  war  than  I  had 
the  king  of  France's  promises   to  make  ever  before  seen  or  thought  him. :' 

me  master  of  my  subjects  come  to  this? 


388  FALL   OF  DANBY.  CHAP.  XII. 

dreading  the  violence  of  the  house  of  commons,  and  ascrib 
ing  it  rather  to  a  republican  conspiracy  than  to  his  own 
misconduct,  he  looked  to  a  military  force  as  his  security. 
From  this  motive  we  may  account  for  his  strange  proposal 
to  the  French  king  of  a  league  in  support  of  Sweden,  by 
which  he  was  to  furnish  fifteen  ships  and  10,000  men  at  the 
expense  of  France,  during  three  years,  receiving  six  millions 
for  the  first  year,  and  four  for  each  of  the  two  next.  Louis, 
as  is  highly  probable,  betrayed  this  project  to  the  Dutch  gov 
ernment,  and  thus  frightened  them  into  that  hasty  signature 
of  the  treaty  of  Nimeguen,  which  broke  up  the  confederacy, 
and  accomplished  the  immediate  objects  of  his  ambition.  No 
longer  in  need  of  the  court  of  England,  he  determined  to 
punish  it  for  that  duplicity  which  none  resent  more  in  others 
than  those  who  are  accustomed  to  practise  it.  He  refused 
Charles  the  pension  stipulated  by  the  private  treaty,  alleging 
that  its  conditions  had  not  been  performed ;  and  urged  on 
Montagu,  with  promises  of  indemnification,  to  betray  as  much 
as  he  knew  of  that  secret,  in  order  to  ruin  lord  Danby.1 
The  ultimate  cause  of  this  minister's  fall  may  thus  be  de- 

-aii  of  duced  from  the  best  action  of  his  life  ;  though  it 

Dauby.  ensued  immediately  from  his  very  culpable  weak- 

1eHchment  ness  m  ai^mg  tne  king's  inclinations  towards  a 
sordid  bargaining  with  France.  It  is  well  known 
that  the  famous  letter  to  Montagu,  empowering  him  to  make 
an  offer  of  neutrality  for  the  price  of  6,000,000  livres,  was  not 
only  written  by  the  king's  express  order,  but  that  Charles 
attested  this  with  his  own  signature  in  a  postscript.  This 
bears  date  five  days  after  an  act  had  absolutely  passed  to 
raise  money  for  carrying  on  the  war ;  a  circumstance  worthy 
of  particular  attention,  as  it  both  puts  an  end  to  every  pre 
text  or  apology  which  the  least  scrupulous  could  venture  to 
urge  in  behalf  of  this  negotiation,  and  justifies  the  whig  party 
of  England  in  an  invincible  distrust,  an  inexpiable  hatred,  of 
so  perfidious  a  cozener  as  filled  the  throne.  But,  as  he  was 
beyond  their  reach,  they  exercised  a  constitutional  right  in 
the  impeachment  of  his  responsible  minister.  For  responsible 
he  surely  was  ;  though,  strangely  mistaking  the  obligations 
of  an  English  statesman,  Danby  seems  to  fancy  in  his  printed 
defence  that  the  king's  order  would  be  sufficient  warrant  to 

justify  obedience  in   any   case    not  literally  unlawful.     "  I 

i  Dalrymple,  178,  et  post. 


CHA.  II.  —  1G73-85.         HIS   IMPEACHMENT.  389 

believe,"  he  says,  "  there  are  very  few  subjects  but  what 
would  take  it  ill  not  to  be  obeyed  by  their  servants ;  and 
their  servants  might  as  justly  expect  their  master's  protection 
for  their  obedience."  The  letter  to  Montagu,  he  asserts, 
"  was  written  by  the  king's  command,  upon  the  subject  of 
peace  and  war,  wherein  his  majesty  alone  is  at  all  times  sole 
judge,  and  ought  to  be  obeyed  not  only  by  any  of  his  min 
isters  of  state  but  by  all  his  subjects." 1  Such  were,  in  that 
age,  the  monarchical  or  tory  maxims  of  government,  which 
the  impeachment  of  this  minister  contributed  in  some  meas 
ure  to  overthrow.  As  the  king's  authority  for  the  letter 
to  Montagu  was  an  undeniable  fact,  evidenced  by  his  own 
handwriting,  the  commons  in  impeaching  lord  Danby  went 
a  great  way  towards  establishing  the  principle  that  no  min 
ister  can  shelter  himself  behind  the  throne  by  pleading 
obedience  to  the  orders  of  his  sovereign.  He  is  considered, 
in  the  modern  theory  of  the  constitution,  answerable  for  the 
justice,  the  honesty,  the  utility  of  all  measures  emanating 
from  the  crown,  as  well  as  for  their  legality ;  and  thus  the 
executive  administration  is  rendered  subordinate,  in  all  great 
matters  of  policy,  to  the  superintendence  and  virtual  control 
of  the  two  houses  of  parliament.  It  must  at  the  same  time 
be  admitted  that,  through  the  heat  of  honest  indignation  and 
some  less  worthy  passions  on  the  one  hand,  through  uncer 
tain  and  crude  principles  of  constitutional  law  on  the  other, 
this  just  and  necessary  impeachment  of  the  earl  of  Danby 
was  not  so  conducted  as  to  be  exempt  from  all  reproach. 
The  charge  of  high-treason  for  an  offence  manifestly  amount 
ing  only  to  misdemeanor,  with  the  purpose,  not  perhaps  of 
taking  the  life  of  the  accused,  but  at  least  of  procuring  some 
punishment  beyond  the  law,'2  with  the  strange  mixture  of 
articles,  as  to  which  there  was  no  presumptive  proof,  or 
which  were  evidently  false,  such  as  concealment  of  the  pop 
ish  plot,  gave  such  a  character  of  intemperance  and  faction 
to  these  proceedings  as  may  lead  superficial  readers  to  con 
demn  them  altogether.3  The  compliance  of  Danby  with  the 

i  Memoirs    relating    to   the   Impeach-  is  to  be  remembered  that  they  were  ex- 

n.ent  of  the  Earl  of  Dauby,  1710,  p.  151,  asperated  by  the  pardon  he  had  elandes- 

227.     State  Trials,  vol.  xi.  tiuely  obtained,  and  pleaded  in  bar  of 

-  The  violence  of  the   next   house  of  their  impeachment. 

commons,  who   refused   to  acquiesce  in         3  The  impeachment  was  carried  by  179 

Danby's  banishment,  to  which  the  lords  to  116,  Dec.  19.      A  motion,  Dec.   21,  to 

had  changed  their  bill  of  attainder,  may  leave  out  the  word  traitorously,  was  lost 

seem  to  render  it  very  doubtful  whether  by  179  to  141. 
they  would  have  spared  his  life.     But  it 


390       QUESTIONS   ON  DANBY'S   IMPEACHMENT.      CHAP.  XII. 

king's  corrupt  policy  had  been  highly  culpable,  but  it  was 
not  unprecedented;  it  was  even  conformable  to  the  court 
standard  of  duty ;  and  as  it  sprang  from  too  inordinate  a 
desire  to  retain  power,  it  would  have  found  an  appropriate 
and  adequate  chastisement  in  exclusion  from  office.  We 
judge  perhaps  somewhat  more  favorably  of  lord  Danby  than 
his  contemporaries  at  that  juncture  were  warranted  to  do; 
but  even  then  he  was  rather  a  minister  to  be  pulled  down 
than  a  man  to  be  severely  punished.  His  one  great  and 
undeniable  service  to  the  protestant  and  English  interests 
should  have  palliated  a  multitude  of  errors.  Yet  this  was 
the  mainspring  and  first  source  of  the  intrigue  that  ruined 
him. 

The  impeachment  of  lord  Danby  brought  forward  several 
Questions  material  discussions  on  that  part  of  our  constitu- 
arisiug  on  tional  law  which  should  not  be  passed  over  in  this 
peachment.  place.  1.  As  soon  as  the  charges  presented  by 
commit8  tnc  commons  at  tne  bar  of  the  upper  house  had 
meut  to  the  been  read,  a  motion  was  made  that  the  earl  should 
withdraw  ;  and  another  afterwards  that  he  should 
be  committed  to  the  Tower ;  both  of  which  were  negatived 
by  considerable  majorities.1  This  refusal  to  commit  on  a 
charge  of  treason  had  created  a  dispute  between  the  two 
houses  in  the  instance  of  lord  Clarendon.2  In  that  case,  how 
ever,  one  of  the  articles  of  impeachment  did  actually  contain 
an  unquestionable  treason.  But  it  was  contended  with  much 
more  force  on  the  present  occasion,  that  if  the  commons,  by 
merely  using  the  word  traitorously,  could  alter  the  character 
of  offences  which,  on  their  own  showing,  amounted  but  to 
misdemeanors,  the  boasted  certainty  of  the  law  in  matters 
of  treason  would  be  at  an  end  ;  and  unless  it  were  meant 
that  the  lords  should  pass  sentence  in  such  a  case  against  the 
received  rules  of  law,  there  could  be  no  pretext  for  their 
refusing  to  admit  the  accused  to  bail.  Even  in  Stafford's 
case,  which  was  a  condemned  precedent,  they  had  a  general 
charge  of  high-treason  upon  which  he  was  committed;  while 
the  offences  alleged  against  Danby  were  stated  with  par 
ticularity,  and  upon  the  face  of  the  articles  could  not  be 
brought  within  any  reasonable  interpretation  of  the  statutes 

i  Lords'  Journals,  December  26,  1678.        -  State  Trials,  vi.  351,  et  post.     Hut- 
Eighteen   peers   entered   their  protests :     sell's  Precedents,  iv.  176. 
Halifax,  Essex,  Shaftesbury,  &c. 


CHA.  II.  — 1073-85.      COMMITMENT   TO   THE   TOWER.  391 

relating  to  treason.  The  house  of  commons  faintly  urged  a 
remarkable  clause  in  the  act  of  Edward  III.,  which  provides 
that,  in  case  of  any  doubt  arising  as  to  the  nature  of  an 
offence  charged  to  amount  to  treason,  the  judges  should  refer 
it  to  the  sentence  of  parliament ;  and  maintain  that  this  in 
vested  the  two  houses  with  a  declaratory  power  to  extend 
the  penalties  of  the  law  to  new  offences  which  had  not  been 
clearly  provided  for  in  its  enactments.  But,  though  some 
thing  like  this  might  possibly  have  been  in  contemplation 
with  the  framers  of  that  statute,  and  precedents  were  not 
absolutely  wanting  to  support  the  construction,  it  was  so 
repugnant  to  the  more  equitable  principles  of  criminal  law 
which  had  begun  to  gain  ground,  that  even  the  heat  of  fac 
tion  did  not  induce  the  commons  to  insist  upon  it.  They 
may  be  considered,  however,  as  having  carried  their  point ; 
for,  though  the  prorogation  and  subsequent  dissolution  of  the 
present  parliament  ensued  so  quickly  that  nothing  more  was 
done  in  the  matter,  yet,  when  the  next  house  of  commons 
revived  the  impeachment,  the  lords  voted  to  take  Danby  into 
custody  without  any  further  objection.1  It  ought  not  to  be 
inferred  from  hence  that  they  were  wrong  in  refusing  to 
commit ;  nor  do  I  conceive,  notwithstanding  the  later  prece 
dent  of  lord  Oxford,  that  any  rule  to  the  contrary  is  es 
tablished.  In  any  future  case  it  ought  to  be  open  to  debate 
whether  articles  of  impeachment  pretending  to  contain  a 
charge  of  high-treason  do  substantially  set  forth  overt  acts  of 
such  a  crime ;  and  if  the  house  of  lords  shall  be  of  opinion, 
either  by  consulting  the  judges  or  otherwise,  that  no  treason 
is  specially  alleged,  they  should,  notwithstanding  any  tech 
nical  words,  treat  the  offence  as  a  misdemeanor,  and  admit 
the  accused  to  bail.2 

1  Lords'  Journals,  April  16.  that  the  lords  did  not  intend  to  extend 

2  ''The  lord  privy  seal,  Anglesea,  in  a  the  points  of  withdrawing  and  commit- 
conference  between  the  two  houses,"  said  ting   to  general    impeachments   without 
"  that  in  the  transaction  of  this  affair  special  matter  alleged ;  else  they  did  not 
were   two   great  points    gained    by   this  know  how  many  might  be  picked  out  of 
house  of  commons:    the  first  was,  that  their  house  on  a  sudden." 
impeachments  made  by  the  commons  in  Shaftesbury  said,  indecently  enough, 
one  parliament  continued  from  session  to  that  they  were  as  willing  to  be  rid  of  the 
session,   and   parliament  to  parliament,  earl  of  Danby  as  the  commons,  and  cav- 
notwithstanding  prorogations  or  dissolu-  illed  at  the  distinction  between  general 
tions  :  the  other  point  was,  that  in  cases  and   special    impeachments.     Commons' 
of  impeachments,    upon   special  matter  Journals,   April   12.    1679.     On  the  im- 
shown,  if  the  modesty  of  the  party  directs  peachment  of  Scroggs  for  treason,  in  the 
him   not   to  withdraw   the   lords  admit  next  parliament,  it  was  moved  to  commit 
that  of  right  they  ought  to  order  him  to  him  ;  but  the  previous  question  was  car- 
withdraw,  and  that  afterwards  he  ought  ried.  and  he  was  admitted  to  bail ;  doubt- 
to   be   committed.     But   he    understood  less    because    no    sufficient   matter   was 


392  PARDOX  PLEADED  IX  BAR.      CHAP.  XII. 

2.  A  still  more  important  question  arose  as  to  the  king's 
Pardon  right  of  pardon  upon  a  parliamentary  impeach- 
pieaded  mcnt.  Danby,  who  had  absconded  on  the  unex 
pected  revival  of  these  proceedings  in  the  new 
parliament,  finding  that  an  act  of  attainder  was  likely  to  pass 
against  him  in  consequence  of  his  flight  from  justice,  sur 
rendered  himself  to  the  usher  of  the  black  rod  ;  and,  on 
being  required  to  give  in  his  written  answer  to  the  charges 
of  the  commons,  pleaded  a  pardon  secretly  obtained  from  the 
king,  in  bar  of  the  prosecution.1  The  commons  resolved 
that  the  pardon  was  illegal  and  void,  and  ought  not  to  be 
pleaded  in  bar  of  the  impeachment  of  the  commons  of  Eng 
land.  They  demanded  judgment  at  the  lords'  bar  against 
Danby,  as  having  put  in  a  void  plea.  They  resolved,  with 
that  culpable  violence  which  distinguished  this  and  the  suc 
ceeding  house  of  commons,  in  order  to  deprive  the  accused 
of  the  assistance  of  counsel,  that  no  commoner  whatsoever 
should  presume  to  maintain  the  validity  of  the  pardon 
pleaded  by  the  earl  of  Danby,  without  their  consent,  on 
pain  of  being  accounted  a  betrayer  of  the  liberties  of  the 
commons  of  England.2  They  denied  the  right  of  the  bish 
ops  to  vote  on  the  validity  of  this  pardon.  They  demanded 
the  appointment  of  a  committee  from  both  houses  to  regulate 
the  form  and  manner  of  proceeding  on  this  impeachment, 
as  well  as  on  that  of  the  five  lords  accused  of  participation 
in  the  popish  plot.  The  upper  house  gave  some  signs  of  a 
vacillating  and  temporizing  spirit,  not  by  any  means  unac 
countable.  They  acceded,  after  a  first  refusal,  to  the  propo 
sition  of  a  committee,  though  manifestly  designed  to  encroach 
on  their  own  exclusive  claim  of  judicature.3  But  they  came 
to  a  resolution  that  the  spiritual  lords  had  a  right  to  sit  and 
vote  in  parliament  in  capital  cases,  until  judgment  of  death 
shall  be  pronounced.4  The  commons  of  course  protested 
against  this  vote  ; 5  but  a  prorogation  soon  dropped  the  cur- 

alleged.    Twenty  peers  protested.    Lords'  4  May    13.      Twenty-one    peers    were 

Journals.  Jan.  7.  1681.  entered   as   dissentient.     The    commons 

1  Lords'    Journals,    April    25.      Parl.  inquired   whether  it   were   intended    by 
Hist.  1121,   &c.  this  that  the  bishops  should  vote  011  the 

2  Lords;  Journals,  May  9,  1679.  pardon  of  Danby,  which  the  upper  house 

3  Lords'   Journals,    May    10    and    11.  declined  to  answer,  but  said  they  could 
After  the  former  rote  50  peers,  out  of  107  not  vote  on  the  trial  of  the  five  popish 
who  appear  to  have  been  present,  entered  lords,  May  15,  17.  27. 

their  dissent;  and  another,  the  earl  of         5  See    the  report   of   a    committee    in 
Leicester,  is  known  to  have  voted  with     Journals,    May   26 ;    or   Hatsell's   Prece- 
the  minority.     This  unusual  strength  of    dents,  iv.  374. 
opposition  no  doubt  produced  the  change 
next  day. 


CHA.  II.  — 1073-85.         TOTES   OF   BISHOPS.  393 

tain  over  their  differences  ;  and  Danby's  impeachment  was 
not  acted  upon  in  the  next  parliament. 

There  seems  to  be  no  kind  of  pretence  for  objecting  to 
the  votes  of  the  bishops  on  such  preliminary  votes  of 
questions  as  may  arise  in  an  impeachment  of  blsh°Ps- 
treason.  It  is  true  that  ancient  custom  has  so  far  engrafted 
the  provisions  of  the  ecclesiastical  law  on  our  constitution 
that  they  are  bound  to  withdraw  when  judgment  of  life  or 
death  is  pronounced  ;  though  even  in  this  they  always  did 
it  with  a  protestation  of  their  right  to  remain.  This,  once 
claimed  as  a  privilege  of  the  church,  and  reluctantly  ad 
mitted  by  the  state,  became,  in  the  lapse  of  ages,  an  exclu 
sion  and  a  badge  of  inferiority.  In  the  constitutions  of 
Clarendon  under  Henry  II.  it  is  enacted,  that  the  bishops 
and  others  holding  spiritual  benefices  "  in  capite "  should 
give  their  attendance  at  trials  in  parliament  till  it  come  to 
sentence  of  life  or  member.  This,  although  perhaps  too 
ancient  to  have  authority  as  statute  law,  was  a  sufficient 
evidence  of  the  constitutional  usage,  where  nothing  so  ma 
terial  could  be  alleged  on  the  other  side.  And,  as  the 
original  privilege  was  built  upon  nothing  better  than  the 
narrow  superstitions  of  the  canon  law,  there  was  no  rea 
sonable  pretext  for  carrying  the  exclusion  of  the  spiritual 
lords  farther  than  certain  and  constant  precedents  required. 
Though  it  was  true,  as  the  enemies  of  lord  Danby  urged, 
that  by  voting  for  the  validity  of  his  pardon  they  would  in 
effect  determine  the  whole  question  in  his  favor,  yet  there 
seemed  no  serious  reason,  considering  it  abstractedly  from 
party  views,  why  they  should  not  thus  indirectly  be  restored 
for  once  to  a  privilege  from  which  the  prejudices  of  former 
ages  alone  had  shut  them  out. 

The  main  point  in  controversy,  whether  a  general  or 
special  pardon  from  the  king  could  be  pleaded  in  answer 
to  an  impeachment  of  the  commons,  so  as  to  prevent  any 
further  proceedings  in  it,  never  came  to  a  regular  decision. 
It  wras  evident  that  a  minister  who  had  influence  enough  to 
obtain  such  an  indemnity  might  set  both  houses  of  parlia 
ment  at  defiance  ;  the  pretended  responsibility  of  the  crown's 
advisers,  accounted  the  palladium  of  our  constitution,  would 
be  an  idle  mockery  if  not  only  punishment  could  be  averted 
but  inquiry  frustrated.  Even  if  the  king  could  remit  the 
penalties  of  a  guilty  minister's  sentence  upon  impeachment, 


394          PAEDOX  PLEADED  IX  BAR.      CHAP.  XII. 

it  would  be  much  that  public  indignation  should  have  been 
excited  against  him,  that  suspicion  should  have  been  turned 
into  proof,  that  shame  and  reproach,  irremissible  by  the 
great  seal,  should  avenge  the  wrongs  of  his  country.  It 
was  always  to  be  presumed  that  a  sovereign,  undeceived  by 
such  a  judicial  inquiry,  or  sensible  to  the  general  voice  it 
roused,  would  voluntarily,  or  at  least  prudently,  abandon  an 
unworthy  favorite.  Though  it  might  be  admitted  that  long 
usage  had  established  the  royal  prerogative  of  granting  par 
dons  under  the  great  seal,  even  before  trial,  and  that  such 
pardons  might  be  pleaded  in  bar  (a  prerogative  indeed 
which  ancient  statutes,  not  repealed,  though  gone  into  disuse, 
or  rather  in  no  time  acted  upon,  had  attempted  to  restrain), 
yet  we  could  not  infer  that  it  extended  to  cases  of  impeach 
ment.  In  ordinary  criminal  proceedings  by  indictment  the 
king  was  before  the  court  as  prosecutor,  the  suit  was  in  his 
name  ;  he  might  stay  the  process  at  his  pleasure  by  entering 
a  "  noli  prosequi ; "  to  pardon,  before  or  after  judgment,  was 
a  branch  of  the  same  prerogative  ;  it  was  a  great  constitu 
tional  trust,  to  be  exercised  at  his  discretion.  But  in  an 
appeal,  that  is,  an  accusation  of  felony,  brought  by  the  in 
jured  party  or  his  next  of  blood,  a  proceeding  wherein  the 
king's  name  did  not  appear,  it  was  undoubted  that  he  could 
not  remit  the  capital  sentence.  The  same  principle  seemed 
applicable  to  an  impeachment  at  the  suit  of  the  commons  of 
England,  demanding  justice  from  the  supreme  tribunal  of 
the  other  house  of  parliament.  It  could  not  be  denied  that 
James  had  remitted  the  whole  sentence  upon  lord  Bacon. 
But  impeachments  were  so  unusual  at  that  time,  and  the 
privileges  of  parliament  so  little  out  of  dispute,  that  no  great 
stress  could  be  laid  on  this  precedent. 

Such  must  have  been  the  course  of  arguing,  strong  on  po 
litical  and  specious  on  legal  grounds,  which  induced  the  com 
mons  to  resist  the  plea  put  in  by  lord  Danby.  Though  this 
question  remained  in  suspense  on  the  present  occasion,  it  was 
finally  decided  by  the  legislature  in  the  act  of  settlement, 
which  provides  that  no  pardon  under  the  great  seal  of  Eng 
land  be  pleadable  to  an  impeachment  of  the  commons  in 
parliament.1  These  expressions  seem  tacitly  to  concede  the 
crown's  right  of  granting  a  pardon  after  sentence,  which, 
though  perhaps  it  could  not  well  be  distinguished  in  point  of 
i  13  w.  in.  c.  2 


CHA.  II.  — 1673-85.   ABATEMENT  OF  IMPEACHMENTS.    395 

law  from  a  pardon  pleadable  in  bar,  stands  on  a  very  differ 
ent  footing,  as  has  been  observed  above,  with  respect  to  con 
stitutional  policy.  Accordingly,  upon  the  impeachment  of 
the  six  peers  who  had  been  concerned  in  the  rebellion  of 
1715,  the  house  of  lords,  after  sentence  passed,  having  come 
to  a  resolution  on  debate  that  the  king  had  a  right  to  reprieve 
in  cases  of  impeachment,  addressed  him  to  exercise  that  pre 
rogative  as  to  such  of  them  as  should  deserve  his  mercy  ; 
and  three  of  the  number  were  in  consequence  pardoned.1 

3.  The  impeachment  of  Danby  first  brought  forward  an 
other  question  of  hardly  less  magnitude,  and  re 
markable  as  one  of  the  few  great  points  in  consti- 
tutional  law  which  have  been  discussed  and  finally  ments  fey 

,,.,.,  ,,     ,  J    dissolution. 

settled  within  the  memory  of  the  present  genera 
tion  :  I  mean  the  continuance  of  an  impeachment  by  the 
commons  from  one  parliament  to  another.  Though  this  has 
been  put  at  rest  by  a  determination  altogether  consonant  to 
maxims  of  expediency,  it  seems  proper  in  this  place  to  show 
briefly  the  grounds  upon  which  the  argument  on  both  sides 
rested. 

In  the  earlier  period  of  our  parliamentary  records  the  bus 
iness  of  both  houses,  whether  of  a  legislative  or  judicial 
nature,  though  often  very  multifarious,  was  despatched  with 
the  rapidity  natural  to  comparatively  rude  times,  by  men 
impatient  of  delay,  unused  to  doubt,  and  not  cautious  in  the 
proof  of  facts  or  attentive  to  the  sub-tleties  of  reasoning. 
The  session,  generally  speaking,  was  not  to  terminate  till  the 
petitions  in  parliament  for  redress  had  been  disposed  of, 
whether  decisively  or  by  reference  to  some  more  permanent 
tribunal.  Petitions  for  alteration  of  the  law,  presented  by 
the  commons  and  assented  to  by  the  lords,  were  drawn  up 
into  statutes  by  the  king's  council  just  before  the  prorogation 
or  dissolution.  They  fell  naturally  to  the  ground  if  the  ses 
sion  closed  before  they  could  be  submitted  to  the  king's 
pleasure.  The  great  change  that  took  place  in  the  reign  of 
Henry  VI.,  by  passing  bills  complete  in  their  form  through 
the  two  houses  instead  of  petitions,  while  it  rendered  manifest 
to  every  eye  that  distinction  between  legislative  and  judicial 
proceedings  which  the  simplicity  of  olden  times  had  half 

i  Parl.  Hist.  vii.  283.     Mr.  Lechmere,  a    ment.  had  most  confidently  denied  this 
very  ardent  whig,  then  solicitor-general,     prerogative.     Id.  233. 
aud  one  of  the  managers  on  the  impeach- 


•396  ABATEMENT   OF  IMPEACHMENTS          CHAP.  XII. 

concealed,  did  not  affect  this  constitutional  principle.  At  the 
close  of  a  session  every  bill  then  in  progress  through  parlia 
ment  became  a  nullity,  and  must  pass  again  through  all  its 
stages  before  it  could  be  tendered  for  the  royal  assent.  No 
sort  of  difference  existed  in  the  effect  of  a  prorogation  and  a 
dissolution  ;  it  was  even  maintained  that  a  session  made  a 
parliament. 

During  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries  writs  of  error 
from  inferior  courts  to  the  house  of  lords  became  far  less 
usual  than  in  the  preceding  age  ;  and  when  they  occurred,  as 
error  could  only  be  assigned  on  a  point  of  law  appearing  on 
the  record,  they  were  quickly  decided  with  the  assistance  of 
the  judges.  But,  when  they  grew  more  frequent,  and  espe 
cially  when  appeals  from  the  chancellor,  requiring  often  a 
tedious  examination  of  depositions,  were  brought  before  the 
lords,  it  was  found  that  a  sudden  prorogation  might  often 
interrupt  a  decision  ;  and  the  question  arose  whether  writs  of 
error,  and  other  proceedings  of  a  similar  nature,  did  not, 
according  to  precedent  or  analogy,  cease,  or,  in  technical 
language,  abate,  at  the  close  of  a  session.  An  order  was 
accordingly  made  by  the  house  on  March  11,  1673,  that  "  the 
lords'  committees  for  privileges  should  inquire  whether  an 
appeal  to  this  house,  either  by  writ  of  error  or  petition,  from 
the  proceedings  of  any  other  court,  being  depending  and  not 
determined  in  one  session  of  parliament,  continue  in  statu 
quo  unto  the  next  session  of  parliament,  without  renewing 
the  writ  of  error  or  petition  or  beginning  all  anew."  The 
committee  reported  on  the  29th  of  March,  after  misreciting 
the  order  of  reference  to  them  in  a  very  remarkable  manner, 
by  omitting  some  words  and  interpolating  others,  so  as  to 
make  it  far  more  extensive  than  it  really  was,1  that  upon  the 
consideration  of  precedents,  which  they  specify,  they  came  to 
a  resolution  that  "  businesses  depending  in  one  parliament  or 
session  of  parliament  have  been  continued  to  the  next  session 
of  the  same  parliament,  and  the  proceedings  thereupon  have 
remained  in  the  same  state  in  which  they  were  left  when  last 
in  agitation."  The  house  approved  of  this  resolution,  and 
ordered  it  accordingly.2 

i  Instead  of  the  words  in  the  order,  not  in  their  legislative  capacity."     The 

u  from    the    proceedings    of   any    other  importance  of  this  alteration  as  to  the 

court/'  the  following  are  inserted,  •'  or  question  of  impeachment  is  obvious, 

any  other  business  wherein  their  lord-  2  Lords'  Jouruals. 
ships  act  as  in  a  court  of  judicature,  and 


CHA.  II.  - 1673-85.          BY   DISSOLUTION.  397 

This  resolution  was  decisive  as  to  the  continuance  of  ordi 
nary  judicial  business  beyond  the  termination  of  a  session. 
It  was  still  open  to  dispute  whether  it  might  not  abate  by  a 
dissolution  ;  and  the  peculiar  case  of  impeachment  to  which, 
after  the  dissolution  of  the  long  parliament  in  1678,  every 
one's  attention  was  turned,  seemed  to  stand  on  different 
grounds.  It  was  referred,  therefore,  to  the  committee  of 
privileges  on  the  llth  of  March,  1679,  to  consider  whether 
petitions  of  appeal  which  were  presented  to  this  house  in  the 
last  parliament  be  still  in  force  to  be  proceeded  on.  Next 
day  it  is  referred  to  the  same  committee,  on  a  report  of  the 
matter  of  fact  as  to  the  impeachments  of  the  earl  of  Danby 
and  the  five  popish  lords  in  the  late  parliament,  to  consider 
of  the  state  of  the  said  impeachments  and  all  the  incidents  re 
lating  thereto,  and  to  report  to  the  house.  On  the  18th  of 
March  lord  Essex  reported  from  the  committee  that,  "  upon 
perusal  of  the  judgment  of  this  house  of  the  29th  of  March, 
1673,  they  are  of  opinion  that,  in  all  cases  of  appeals  and  writs 
of  error,  they  continue,  and  are  to  be  proceeded  on,  in  statu 
quo,  as  they  stood  at  the  dissolution  of  the  last  parliament, 

without  beginning  de  novo And,  upon  consideration 

had  of  the  matter  referred  to  their  lordships  concerning  the 
state  of  the  impeachments  brought  up  from  the  house  of 

commons    the    last    parliament,  &c they    are    of 

opinion  that  the  dissolution  of  the  last  parliament  doth  not 
alter  the  state  of  the  impeachments  brought  up  by  the  com 
mons  in  that  parliament.  This  report  was  taken  into  consid 
eration  next  day  by  the  house  ;  and  after  a  debate,  which 
appears  from  the  Journals  to  have  lasted  some  time,  after 
the  previous  question  had  been  moved  and  lost,  it  was  re 
solved  to  agree  with  the  committee.1 

This  resolution  became  for  some  years  the  acknowledged 
law  of  parliament.  Lord  Stafford,  at  his  trial  in  1680,  hav 
ing  requested  that  his  council  might  be  heard  as  to  the  point 
whether  impeachments  could  go  from  one  parliament  to  an 
other,  the  house  took  no  notice  of  this  question  ;  though  they 
consulted  the  judges  about  another  which  he  had  put,  as  to 
the  necessity  of  two  witnesses  to  every  overt  act  of  treason.2 
Lord  Danby  and  chief-justice  Scroggs  petitioned  the  lords  in 
the  Oxford  parliament,  one  to  have  the  charges  against  him 

i  Lords' Journals.    Seventy-eight  peers        "  Id.  4th  Dec.  1680. 
were  present. 


398         ABATEMENT  OF  IMPEACHMENTS    CHAP.  XII. 

dismissed,  the  other  to  be  bailed ;  but  neither  take  the 
objection  of  an  intervening  dissolution.1  And  lord  Danby, 
after  the  dissolution  of  three  successive  parliaments  since 
that  in  which  he  was  impeached,  having  lain  for  three  years 
in  the  Tower,  when  he  applied  to  be  enlarged  on  bail  by  the 
court  of  king's  bench  in  1682,  was  refused  by  the  judges,  on 
the  ground  of  their  incompetency  to  meddle  in  a  parliamen 
tary  impeachment ;  though,  if  the  prosecution  were  already 
at  an  end,  he  would  have  been  entitled  to  an  absolute  dis 
charge.  On  Jefferies  becoming  chief-justice  of  the  king's 
bench,  Danby  was  admitted  to  bail.2  But  in  the  parliament 
of  1 085,  the  impeached  lords  having  petitioned  the  house,  it 
was  resolved  that  the  order  of  the  19th  of  March,  1679,  be 
reversed  and  annulled  as  to  impeachments  ;  and  they  were 
consequently  released  from  their  recognizances.3 

The  first  of  these  two  contradictory  determinations  is  not 
certainly  free  from  that  reproach  which  so  often  contaminates 
our  precedents  of  parliamentary  law,  and  renders  an  honest 
man  reluctant  to  show  them  any  greater  deference  than  is 
strictly  necessary.  It  passed  during  the  violent  times  of  the 
popisli  plot ;  and  a  contrary  resolution  would  have  set  at  lib 
erty  the  five  catholic  peers  committed  to  the  Tower,  and  en 
abled  them  probably  to  quit  the  kingdom  before  a  new  im 
peachment  could  be  preferred.  It  must  be  acknowledged,  at 
the  same  time,  that  it  was  borne  out  in  a  considerable  degree 
by  the  terms  of  the  order  of  1673,  which  seems  liable  to  no 
suspicion  of  answering  a  temporary  purpose ;  and  that  the 
court  party  in  the  house  of  lords  were  powerful  enough  to 
have  withstood  any  flagrant  innovation  in  the  law  of  parlia 
ment.  As  for  the  second  resolution,  that  of  1685,  which  re 
versed  the  former,  it  was  passed  in  the  very  worst  of  times  ; 
and,  if  we  may  believe  the  protest  signed  by  the  earl  of 
Anglesea  and  three  other  peers,  with  great  precipitation  and 
neglect  of  usual  forms.  It  was  not  however  annulled  after 
the  revolution ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  received  what  may  seem 
at  first  sight  a  certain  degree  of  confirmation  from  an  order 
of  the  house  of  lords  in  1690,  on  the  petitions  of  lords  Salis- 

1  Lords'  Jcrarnals,  March  24, 1681.   The  bailed  to  appear  at  the  lords'  bar  the  first 
very  next  day  the  commons  sent  a  mes-  day  of  the  then  next  parliament."     The 
sage  to   demand  judgment  on   the   im-  catholic  lords  were  bailed  the  next  day. 
peachment  against  him.     Com.   Jouru.  This  proves  that  the  impeachment  was 
March  25.  not  held  to  be  at  an  end. 

2  Shower's  Reports,  ii.  335.     "  He  was  3  Lords'  Journals,  May  22,  1685. 


CHA.  II.  — 1673-85.  BY   DISSOLUTION.  399 

bury  and  Peterborough,  who  had  been  impeached  in  the  pre 
ceding  parliament,  to  be  discharged ;  which  was  done,  after 
reading  the  resolution?  of  1679  and  1685,  and  a  long  debate 
thereon.     But   as  a  general  pardon   had  come   out    in    the 
mean  time,  by  which  the  judges  held  that  the  offences  im 
puted   to  these  two  lords  had  been  discharged,  and  as   the 
commons  showed  no  disposition  to  follow  up  their  impeach 
ment  against  them,  no  parliamentary  reasoning  can  perhaps 
be  founded  on  this  precedent.1     In  the  case  of  the  duke  of 
Leeds,  impeached  by  the  commons  in  1695,  no  further  pro 
ceedings  were  had ;  but  the  lords  did  not  make  an  order  for 
his  discharge  from  the  accusation  till  five  years  after  three 
dissolutions  had  intervened,  and  grounded  it  upon  the  com 
mons  not  proceeding  with  the  impeachment.     They  did  not, 
however,  send   a  message  to  inquire  if  the  commons   were 
ready  to  proceed,  which,  according  to  parliamentary  usage, 
would  be  required  in  case  of  a  pending  impeachment.      The 
cases  of  lords  Somers,  Orford,  and  Halifax  were  similar  to 
that  of  the  duke  of  Leeds,  except  that  so  long  a  period  did 
not  intervene.     These  instances  therefore  rather  tend  to  con 
firm  the  position  that  impeachments  did  not  ipso  facto  abate 
by  a  dissolution,  notwithstanding  the  reversal  of  the  order  of 
1679.     In  the  case  of  the  earl  of  Oxford,  it  was  formally 
resolved   in   1717  that  an  impeachment  does  not  determine 
by    a   prorogation  of  parliament ;    an    authority   conclusive 
to  those  who  maintain  that  no  difference  exists  in  the  law 
of  parliament  between   the   effects   of  a  prorogation  and   a 
dissolution.     But  it  is  difficult  to  make  all  men  consider  this 
satisfactory. 

The  question  came  finally  before  both  houses  of  parliament 
in  1791.  a  dissolution  having  intervened  during  the  impeach 
ment  of  Mr.  Hastings ;  an  impeachment  which,  far  unlike 
the  rapid  proceedings  of  former  ages,  had  already  been  for 
three  years  before  the  house  of  lords,  and  seemed  likely  to 
run  on  to  an  almost  interminable  length.  It  must  have  been 
abandoned  in  despair,  if  the  prosecution  had  been  held  to  de 
termine  by  the  late  dissolution.  The  general  reasonings, 
and  the  force  of  precedents  on  both  sides,  were  urged  with 
great  ability,  and  by  the  principal  speakers  in  both  houses ; 

l  Upon  considering  the  proceedings  in  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  their  re- 

the  house  of  lords  on  this  subject,  Oct.  6  lease  had  been  chiefly  grounded  on  the 

and  30,  1690,  and  especially  the  protest  act  of  grace,  and  not  on  the  abandou- 

sigued  by  eight  peers  on  the  latter  day,  ruent  of  the  impeachment. 


400  POPISH  PLOT.  CHAP.  XII. 

the  lawyers  generally  inclining  to  maintain  the  resolution  of 
1G85,  that  impeachments  abate  by  a  dissolution,  but  against 
still  greater  names  which  were  united  on  the  opposite  side. 
In  the  end,  after  an  ample  discussion,  the  continuance  of  im 
peachments,  in  spite  of  a  dissolution,  was  carried  by  very 
large  majorities ;  and  this  decision,  so  deliberately  taken,  and 
so  free  from  all  suspicion  of  partiality  (the  majority  in 
neither  house,  especially  the  upper,  bearing  any  prejudice 
against  the  accused  person),  as  well  as  so  consonant  to  prin 
ciples  of  utility  and  constitutional  policy,  must  forever  have 
set  at  rest  all  dispute  upon  the  question. 

The  year  1678,  and  the  last  session  of  the  parliament  that 
had  continued  since  16G1,  were  memorable  for  the  great  na- 
PO  i«h  lot  ti°nal  delusion  of  the  popish  plot.  For  national  it 
was  undoubtedly  to  be  called,  and  by  no  means 
confined  to  the  whig  or  opposition  party,  either  in  or  out  of 
parliament,  though  it  gave  them  much  temporary  strength. 
And  though  it  was  a  most  unhappy  instance  of  the  credulity 
begotten  by  heated  passions  and  mistaken  reasoning,  yet 
there  were  circumstances,  and  some  of  them  very  singular 
in  their  nature,  which  explain  and  furnish  an  apology  for  the 
public  error,  and  which  it  is  more  important  to  point  out  and 
keep  in  mind,  than  to  inveigh,  as  is  the  custom  in  modern 
times,  against  the  factiousness  and  bigotry  of  our  ancestors. 
For  I  am  persuaded  that  we  are  far  from  being  secure  from 
similar  public  delusions,  whenever  such  a  concurrence  of  co 
incidences  and  seeming  probabilities  shall  again  arise  as  mis 
led  nearly  the  whole  people  of  England  in  the  popish  plot.1 

It  is  first  to  be  remembered  that  there  was  really  and  truly 
a  popish  plot  in  being,  though  not  that  which  Titus  Gates 
and  his  associates  pretended  to  reveal  —  not  merely  in  the 
sense  of  Hume,  who,  arguing  from  the  general  spirit  of 
proselytism  in  that  religion,  says  there  is  a  perpetual  con 
spiracy  against  all  governments,  protestant,  Mahometan,  and 
pagan,  but  one  alert,  enterprising,  effective,  in  direct  opera 
tion  against  the  established  protestant  religion  in  England. 
In  this  plot  the  king,  the  duke  of  York,  and  the  king  of 
France  were  chief  conspirators ;  the  Romish  priests,  and 
especially  the  Jesuits,  were  eager  cooperators.  Their  ma- 

i  Bishop  Parker  is  not  wrong  in  saying  covery  of  Oates's  plot,  they  readily  be- 
that  the  house  of  commons  had  so  long  lieved  everything  he  said ;  for  they  had 
accustomed  themselves  to  strange  fictions  long  expected  whatever  he  declared, 
about  popery,  that  upon  the  first  dis-  Hist,  of  his  own  Time,  p.  248. 


CHA.  II.  — 1673-85.       COLEMAN'S   LETTERS.  401 

chinations  and  their  hopes,  long  suspected,  and  in  a  general 
sense  known,  were  divulged  by  the  seizure  and  coieman's 
publication  of  Coieman's  letters.  "  We  have  lett«ra- 
here,"  he  says,  in  one  of  these,  "  a  mighty  work  upon  our 
hands,  no  less  than  the  conversion  of  three  kingdoms,  and  by 
that  perhaps  the  utter  subduing  of  a  pestilent  heresy,  which 
has  a  long  time  domineered  over  this  northern  world.  There 
were  never  such  hopes  since  the  death  of  our  queen  Mary  as 
now  in  our  days.  God  hath  given  us  a  prince  who  is  be 
come  (I  may  say  by  miracle)  zealous  of  being  the  author 
and  instrument  of  so  glorious  a  work  ;  but  the  opposition  we 
are  sure  to  meet  with  is  also  like  to  be  great,  so  that  it  imports 
us  to  get  all  the  aid  and  assistance  we  can."  These  letters 
were  addressed  to  Father  la  Chaise,  confessor  of  Louis 
XIV.,  and  displayed  an  intimate  connection  with  France  for 
the  great  purpose  of  restoring  popery.  They  came  to  light 
at  the  very  period  of  Oates's  discovery  ;  and,  though  not 
giving  it  much  real  confirmation,  could  hardly  fail  to  make  a 
powerful  impression  on  men  unaccustomed  to  estimate  the 
value  and  bearings  of  evidence.1 

The  conspiracy  supposed  to  have  been  concerted  by  the 
Jesuits  at  St.  Omer,  and  in  which  so  many  English  catholics 
were  implicated,  chiefly  consisted,  as  is  well  known,  in  a 
scheme  of  assassinating  the  king.  Though  the  obvious  false 
hood  and  absurdity  of  much  that  the  witnesses  deposed  in  re 
lation  to  this  plot  render  it  absolutely  incredible,  and  fully 
acquit  those  unfortunate  victims  of  iniquity  and  prejudice,  it 
could  not  appear  at  the  time  an  extravagant  supposition  that 
an  eager  intriguing  faction  should  have  considered  the  king's 
life  a  serious  obstacle  to  their  hopes.  Though  as  much  at 
tached  in  heart  as  his  nature  would  permit  to  the  catholic 
religion,  he  was  evidently  not  inclined  to  take  any  effectual 
measures  in  its  favor ;  he  was  but  one  year  older  than  his 
brother,  on  the  contingency  of  whose  succession  all  their 
hopes  rested,  since  his  heiress  was  not  only  brought  up  in  the 
protestant  faith,  but  united  to  its  most  strenuous  defender. 
Nothing  could  have  been  more  anxiously  wished  at  St.  Omer 

1  Parl.  Hist.  1024,  1035.     State  Trials,  sage  in   the  letters,   is  not  deficient  in 

vii.  1.     Kennet,  327,  337.  351.     North's  acut  ness.     In  tact,  this  not  only  cou- 

Ex.'imeu.  129,  177.    Ralph,  386.    Burnet,  victed  Coleman,  but  raised  a  general  con- 

i.  555.    Scroggs  tried  Coleman  with  much  viction  of  the  truth  of  a  plot  — and  a 

rudeness   and  partiality  ;  but  his  sum-  plot  there  was,  though  not  Oates's. 
uiing  up,  in  reference  to  the  famous  pas- 
VOL.  II.                         26 


402  MURDER  OF   GODFREY.  CHAP.  XII. 

than  the  death  of  Charles ;  and  it  does  not  seem  improbable 
that  the  atrocious  fictions  of  Gates  may  have  been  originally 
suggested  by  some  actual,  though  vague,  projects  of  assassina 
tion,  which  he  had  heard  in  discourse  among  the  ardent  spir 
its  of  that  college. 

The  popular  ferment  which  this  tale,  however  undeserving 

of  credit,  excited  in  a  predisposed  multitude,  was 
of  sir  Kd-  naturally  wrought  to  a  higher  pitch  by  the  very 
Godfrey17  extraordinary  circumstances  of  sir  Edmondbury 

Godfrey's  death.  Even  at  this  time,  although  we 
reject  the  imputation  thrown  on  the  catholics,  and  especially 
on  those  who  suffered  death  for  that  murder,  it  seems  impos 
sible  to  frame  any  hypothesis  which  can  better  account  for 
the  facts  that  seem  to  be  authenticated.  That  he  was  mur 
dered  by  those  who  designed  to  lay  the  charge  on  the  papists, 
and  aggravate  the  public  fury,  may  pass  with  those  who  rely 
on  such  writers  as  Roger  North,1  but  has  not  the  slightest 
corroboration  from  any  evidence,  nor  does  it  seem  to  have 
been  suggested  by  the  contemporary  libellers  of  the  court 
party.  That  he  might  have  had,  as  an  active  magistrate, 
private  enemies  whose  revenge  took  away  his  life,  which 
seems  to  be  Hume's  conjecture,  is  hardly  more  satisfactory ; 
the  enemies  of  a  magistrate  are  not  likely  to  have  left  his 
person  unphmdered ;  nor  is  it  usual  for  justices  of  the  peace, 
merely  on  account  of  the  discharge  of  their  ordinary  duties, 
to  incur  such  desperate  resentment.  That  he  fell  by  his 
own  hands  was  doubtless  the  suggestion  of  those  who  aimed 
at  discrediting  the  plot ;  but  it  is  impossible  to  reconcile  this 
with  the  marks  of  violence  which  are  so  positively  sworn  to 
have  appeared  on  his  neck :  and,  on  a  later  investigation  of 
the  subject  in  the  year  1682,  when  the  court  had  become  very 
powerful,  and  a  belief  in  the  plot  had  grown  almost  a  mark 
of  disloyalty,  an  attempt  made  to  prove  the  self-murder  o£ 
Godfrey,  in  a  trial  before  Pemberton,  failed  altogether  ;  and 
the  result  of  the  whole  evidence  on  that  occasion  was  strongly 
to  confirm  the  supposition  that  he  had  perished  by  the  hands 
of  assassins.'2  His  death  remains  at  this  moment  a  problem 

1  Exatnen,  p.  196.  to   prove  the  truth  of  the  fact,  which, 

2  ]{.    v.    i'iirwell    and    others.      State  though   in  a   case   of   libel,   Pemberton 
Trials,  viii.   1361.      They   were   indicted  allowed.    But  their  own  witnesses  proved 
for  publishing  some  letters  to  prove  that  that  Godfrey's  body  had  all  the  appear- 
Godfrey  had  killed   himself.      They  de-  aiice  of  being  strangled. 

feuded  themselves   by  calling   witnesses        The  Roman  catholics  gave  out,  at  the 


CHA.  II.  — 1673-85.      INJUSTICE   OF  JUDGES.  403 

for  which  no  tolerably  satisfactory  solution  can  be  offered. 
But  at  the  time  it  was  a  very  natural  presumption  to  connect 
it  with  the  plot,  wherein  he  had  not  only  taken  the  deposi 
tion  of  Gates,  a  circumstance  not  in  itself  highly  important, 
but  was  supposed  to  have  received  the  confidential  communi 
cations  of  Coleman.1 

Another  circumstance,  much  calculated  to  persuade  ordi 
nary  minds  of  the  truth  of  the  plot,  was  the  trial  of  Reading, 
a  Romish  attorney,  for  tampering  with  the  witnesses  against 
the  accused  catholic  peers,  in  order  to  make  them  keep  out 
of  the  way.2  As  such  clandestine  dealing  with  witnesses 
creates  a  strong,  and  perhaps  with  some  too  strong,  a  pre 
sumption  of  guilt,  where  justice  is  sure  to  be  uprightly  ad 
ministered,  men  did  not  make  a  fair  distinction  as  to  times 
when  the  violence  of  the  court  and  jury  gave  no  reasonable 
hope  of  escape,  and  when  the  most  innocent  party  would 
much  rather  procure  the  absence  of  a  perjured  witness  than 
trust  to  the  chance  of  disproving  his  testimony. 

There  was  indeed  good  reason  to  distrust  the  course  of 
justice.      Never  were  our  tribunals  so  disgraced  Inj-ustice  of 
by  the  brutal  manners  and  iniquitous  partiality  of  judges  on 
the   bench  as   in   the   latter  years   of  this   reign.  the  trials> 
The  State  Trials,  none  of  which  appear  to  have  been  pub 
lished  by  the  prisoners'  friends,  bear  abundant  testimony  to 
the   turpitude   of  the  judges.       They   explained  away   and 
softened  the  palpable  contradictions  of  the  witnesses  for  the 
crown,  insulted  and  threatened  those  of  the  accused,  checked 
all    cross-examination,    assumed     the    truth    of    the    charge 
throughout  the   whole  of  every   trial.3     One   Whitbread,   a 

time   of   Godfrey's   death,    that  he   had  times,  Ralph,  does  not  in  the  slightest 

killed     himself,    and     hurt     their    own  degree  pretend  to  account  for  Godfrey's 

cause  by  foolish  lies.     North's  Exameii,  death ;  though,  in  his  general  reflections 

p.  200.  on  the  plot  (p.  555),  he  relies  too  much 

i  It  was  deposed  by  a  respectable  wit-  on   the  assertions   of    North    and    1'Es- 

ness  that  Godfrey  entertained  apprehen-  trange. 

sions  on  account  of  what  he  had  done  as  -  State  Trials,  vii.  259.     North's  Ex- 

to  the  plot,  and  had  said,  '•  On  my  con-  amen,  240. 

science,  I  believe  I  shall  be  the  first  '•*  State  Trials,  vol.  vii.  passim.  On 
martyr."  State  Trials,  vii.  168.  These  the  trial  of  Green,  Berry,  and  Hill,  for 
little  additional  circumstances,  which  Godfrey's  murder,  part  of  the  story  for 
are  suppressed  by  later  historians,  who  the  prosecution  was,  that  the  body  was 
speak  of  the  plot  as  unfit  to  impose  on  brought  to  Hill's  lodgings  on  the  Satur- 
any  but  the  most  bigoted  fanatics,  con-  day,  and  remained  there  till  Monday, 
tributed  to  make  up  a  body  of  presump-  The  prisoner  called  witnesses  who  lodged 
tive  and  positive  evidence  from  which  in  the  same  house  to  prove  that  it  could 
human  belief  is  rarely  withheld.  not  have  been  there  without  their  know-l 
it  is  remarkable  that  the  most  acute  edge.  Wild,  one  of  the  judges,  assuming, 
and  diligent  historian  we  possess  for  those  as  usual,  the  truth  of  the  story  as  beyond 


404  INJUSTICE   OF  JUDGES.  CHAP.  XII. 

Jesuit,  having  been  indicted  with  several  others,  and  the  evi 
dence  not  being  sufficient,  Scroggs  discharged  the  jury  of 
him,  but  ordered  him  to  be  kept  in  custody  till  more  proof 
might  come  in.  He  was  accordingly  indicted  again  for  the 
same  offence.  On  his  pleading  that  he  had  been  already 
tried,  Scroggs  and  North  had  the  effrontery  to  deny  that  he 
had  been  ever  put  in  jeopardy,  though  the  witnesses  of  the 
crown  had  been  fully  heard,  before  the  jury  were  most  ir 
regularly  and  illegally  discharged  of  him  on  the  former  trial. 
North  said  he  had  often  known  it  done,  and  it  was  the  com 
mon  course  of  law.  In  the  course  of  this  proceeding,  Bed- 
loe,  who  had  deposed  nothing  explicit  against  the  prisoner 
on  the  former  trial,  accounted  for  this  by  saying  it  was  not 
then  convenient;  an  answer  with  which  the  court  and  jury 
were  content.1 

It  is  remarkable  that,  although  the  king  might  be  justly 
surmised  to  give  little  credence  to  the  pretended  plot,  and 
the  duke  of  York  was  manifestly  affected  in  his  interests  by 
the  heats  it  excited,  yet  the  judges  most  subservient  to  the 
court,  Scroggs,  North,  Jones,  went  with  all  violence  into  the 
popular  cry,  till,  the  witnesses  beginning  to  attack  the  queen 
and  to  menace  the  duke,  they  found  it  was  time  to  rein  in, 
as  far  as  they  could,  the  passions  they  had  instigated.2  Pem- 
berton,  a  more  honest  man  in  political  matters,  showed  a 
remarkable  intemperance  and  unfairness  in  all  trials  relating 
to  popery.  Even  in  that  of  lord  Stafford  in  1680,  the  last, 

controversy,  said  it  was  very  suspicious  judges  independent  of  the  crown,  but  as 

that  they  should  see  or  hear  nothing  of  it  hrought  forward   those   principles  of 

it ;  and  another,  Dolben,  told  them  it  was  equal  and  indifferent  justice,  which  can 

well   they  were  not  indicted.      Id.    199.  never  be  expected  to  flourish  but  under 

Jones,  summing  up  the  evidence  on  sir  the  shadow  of  liberty. 

Thomas   Gascoigne's   trial    at   York   (an  1  State  Trials,  119.  315.  344. 

aged  catholic  gentleman,  most  improba-  2  Roger  North,  whose  long  account  of 

bly   accused  of  accession   to   the   plot),  the  popish  plot  is,  as  usual  with  him,  a 

says    to    the    jury:     "Gentlemen,    you  medley  of  truth  a7id  lies,  acuteness  and 

have  the  king's  witness  on  his  oath;   he  absurdity,   represents    his   brother,   the 

that  testifies  against  him  is  barely  on  his  chief-justice,  as  perfectly  immaculate  in 

word,  and   he   is   a  papist. "     Id.    1039.  the  midst  of  this  degradation  of  the  bench. 

Thus    deriving    an    argument  from    an  The  State  Trials,  however,  show  that  he 

iniquitous  rule,  which  at  that  time  pre-  was  as   partial  and  unjust  towards  the 

vailed  in  our  law.  of  refusing   to  hear  prisoners  as  any  of  the  rest,  till  the  gov- 

the  prisoner's  witnesses  upon  oath.    Gas-  ernment  thought   it  necessary  to  inter- 

coigne,  however,  was  acquitted.  fere.      The    moment    when    the   judges 

It  would  swell  this  note  to  an  unwar-  veered  round    was    on   the   trial  of    sir 

rantable  length  were  I  to  extract  so  much  George  Wakeman,  physician  to  the  queen, 

of  the  trials  as  might  fully  exhibit  all  the  Scroggs,  who  had  been  infamously  partial 

instances  of  gross  partiality  in  the  conduct  against  the  prisoners  upon  every  former 

of  the  judges.     I  must,  therefore,  refer  occasion,  now  treated  Gates  and  Bedloe  as 

my  readers  to  the  volume  itself — a  stand-  they  deserved,  though  to  the  aggravation 

ing  monument  of  the   necessity  of  the  of  his   own  disgrace.      State  Trials,  vii. 

revolution  ;  not  only  as  it  rendered  the  619-686. 


CHA.  II.  — 1673-85.      PREJUDICE   AGAINST   PAPISTS.  405 

and  perhaps  the  worst,  proceeding  under  this  delusion,  though 
the  court  had  a  standing  majority  in  the  house  of  lords,  he 
was  convicted  by  fifty-five  peers  against  thirty-one  ;  the  earl 
of  Nottingham,  lord-chancellor,  the  duke  of  Lauderdale,  and 
several  others  of  the  administration  voting  him  guilty,  while 
he  was  acquitted  by  the  honest  Hollis  and  the  acute  Halifax.1 
So  far  was  the  belief  in  the  popish  plot,  or  the  eagerness  in 
hunting  its  victims  to  death,  from  being  confined  to  the  whig 
faction,  as  some  writers  have  been  willing  to  insinuate. 
None  had  more  contributed  to  raise  the  national  outcry 
against  the  accused,  and  create  a  firm  persuasion  of  the 
reality  of  the  plot,  than  the  clergy  in  their  sermons,  even  the 
most  respectable  of  their  order,  Sancroft,  Sharp,  Barlow, 
Burnet,  Tillotson,  Stillingfleet ;  inferring  its  truth  from  God 
frey's  murder  or  Colernan's  letter,  calling  for  the  severest 
laws  against  catholics,  and  imputing  to  them  the  fire  of  Lon 
don,  nay  even  the  death  of  Charles  I.2 

Though  the  duke  of  York  was  not  charged  with  participa 
tion  in  the  darkest  schemes  of  the  popish  conspirators,  it  was 
evident  that  his  succession  was  the  great  aim  of  their  en 
deavors,  and  evident  also  that  he  had  been  engaged  in  the 
more  real  and  undeniable  intrigues  of  Coleman.  His  acces 
sion  to  the  throne,  long  viewed  with  just  apprehension,  now 
seemed  to  threaten  such  perils  to  every  part  of  the  constitu 
tion  as  ought  not  supinely  to  be  waited  for,  if  any  means 
could  be  devised  to  obviate  them.  This  gave  rise  Exclusion  of 
to  the  bold  measure  of  the  exclusion  bill,  too  bold  dukeofYork 
indeed  for  the  spirit  of  the  country,  and  the  rock  i)r°i-'osed- 
on  which  English  liberty  was  nearly  shipwrecked.  In  the 
long  parliament,  full  as  it  was  of  pensioners  and  creatures  of 
court  influence,  nothing  so  vigorous  would  have  been  suc- 

i  Lords'  Journals,  7th  December;  ashamed  to  condemn  him  ;  but  it  was  his 
State  Trials,  1552;  Parl.  Hist.  1229.  misfortune  to  play  his  game  worst  when 
Stafford,  though  not  a  man  of  much  abil-  he  had  the  best  cards.''  P.  637. 
ity,  had  rendered  himself  obnoxious  as  a  -'I  take  this  from  extracts  out  of  those 
prominent  opposer  of  all  measures  in-  sermons,  contained  in  the  Roman  Catholic 
tended  to  check  the  growth  of  popery,  pamphlet  printed  in  1687,  and  entitled 
His  name  appears  constantly  in  protests  Good  Advice  to  the  Pulpits.  The  Prot- 
upon  such  occasions  —  as,  for  instance,  estant  divines  did  their  cause  no  good  by 
March  3,  1678,  against  the  bill  for  raising  misrepresentation  of  their  adversaries, 
money  for  a  French  war.  Reresby  praises  and  by  their  propensity  to  rudeness  and 
his  defence  very  highly,  p.  108.  The  scurrility.  The  former  fault,  indeed,  ex- 
duke  of  York,  on  the  contrary,  or  his  bi-  isted  in  a  much  greater  degree  on  the  op- 
ographer,  observes  :  u  Those  who  wished  posite  side,  but  by  no  means  the  latter, 
lord  Stafford  well  were  of  opinion  that,  See  also  a  treatise 'by  Barlow,  published 
had  he  managed  the  advantages  which  in  1679,  entitled  Popish  Principles  perni- 
were  given  him  with  dexterity,  he  would  cious  to  Protestant  Princes, 
have  made  the  greatest  part  of  his  judges 


406 


PARLIAMENT   DISSOLVED. 


CHAP.  XII. 


cessful.  Even  in  the  bill  which  excluded  catholic  peers 
from  sitting  in  the  house  of  lords,  a  proviso,  exempting  the 
duke  of  York  from  its  operation,  having  been  sent  down 
from  the  other  house,  passed  by  a  majority  of  two  voices.1 
Parliament  But  the  zeal  they  showed  against  Danby  induced 
dissolved.  the  king  to  put  an  end  to  this  parliament  of  seven 
teen  years'  duration ;  an  event  long  ardently  desired  by  the 
popular  party,  who  foresaw  their  ascendency  in  the  new 
elections.2  The  next  house  of  commons  accordingly  came 
together  with  an  ardor  not  yet  quenched  by  corruption  ;  and 
after  reviving  the  impeachments  commenced  by  their  pred 
ecessors,  and  carrying  a  measure  long  in  agitation,  a  test3 


1  Parl.  Hist.  1040. 

2  SeeMarvell's  "Seasonable  Argument 
to  persuade  all  the  Grand  Juries  in  Eng 
land  to  petition  for  a  new  Parliament." 
He  gives  very  bad  characters  of  the  prin 
cipal  members  on  the  court  side  ;  but  we 
cannot  take  for  granted  all  that  comes 
from   so    unscrupulous   a  libeller.      Sir 
Harbottle    Grimstone   had   first   thrown 
out,  in  the  session  of  1675.  that  a  standing 
parliament  was  as  great  a  grievance  as  a 
standing  army,  and  that  an  application 
ought  to  be  made  to  the  king  for  a  disso 
lution.     This  was  not  seconded,  and  met 
with  much  disapprobation  from  both  sides 
of  the  house.     Parl.   Hist.  vii.  64.     15ut 
the   country   party,  in   two  years'  time, 
had  changed   their  views,  and  were  be 
come  eager  for  a  dissolution.    An  address 
to  that  effect  was  moved  in  the  house  of 
lords,  and   lost  by  onlv  two  voices,  the 
duke  of  York  voting  for  it.  Id.  800.  This 
is  explained  by  a  passage  in  Coleman's 
letters,   where  that    intriguer  expresses 
his  desire  to  see  parliament  dissolved,  in 
the  hope   that  another  would  be  more 
favorable    to   the  toleration  of  catholics. 
This  must  mean  that  the  dissenters  might 
gain    an    advantage   over    the    rigorous 
church  of  England  men,  and  be  induced 
to  come  into  a  general  indulgence. 

3  This  test  (  30  Car.  II.  stat.  2 )  is  the 
declaration   subscribed   by  members   of 
both  houses  of  parliament  on  taking  their 
seats,  that  there  is  no  transubstantiation 
of  the  elements  in  the  Lord's    Supper  ; 
and  that  the  invocation  of  saints,  as  prac 
tised  in  the  church  of  Rome,  is  idolatrous. 
The  oath  of  supremacy  was  already  taken 
by    the    commons,    though  not   by   the 
lords  ;  and  it  is  a  great  mistake  to  imagine 
that  catholics   were    legally   capable   of 
sitting  in  the  lower  house  before  the  act 
of  1679.     But  it  had  been  the  aim  of  the 
long  parliament  in  1642  to  exclude  them 
from  the  house  of  lords  ;  and  this  was  of 


course  revived  with  greater  eagerness  as 
the  danger  from  their  infl  ucnce  grew  more 
apparent.  A  bill  for  this  purpose  passed 
the  commons  in  1675,  but  was  thrown  out 
by  the  peers.  Journals,  May  14  ;  Nov.  8. 
It  was  brought  in  again  in  the  spring  of 
1678.  Parl.  Hist.  990.  In  the  autumn  of 
the  same  year  it  was  renewed,  when  the 
lords  agreed  to  the  oath  of  supremacy, 
but  omitted  the  declaration  against  tran 
substantiation,  so  far  as  their  own  house 
was  affected  by  it.  Lords'  Journals,  Nov. 
20,  1678.  They  also  excepted  the  duke 
of  York  from  the  operation  of  the  bill ; 
which  exception  was  carried  in  the  com 
mons  by  two  voices.  Parl.  Hist.  1040. 
The  duke  of  York  and  seven  more  lords 
protested. 

The  violence  of  those  times  on  all  sides 
will  account  for  this  theological  declara 
tion;  but  it  is  more  difficult  to  justify 
its  retention  at  present.  Whatever  in 
fluence  a  belief  in  the  pope's  supremacy 
may  exercise  upon  men's  politics,  it  is 
hard  to  see  how  the  doctrine  of  transub 
stantiation  can  directly  affect  them  ;  and 
surely  he  who  renounces  the  former  can 
not  be  very  dangerous  on  account  of  his 
adherence  to  the  latter.  Nor  is  it  less 
extraordinary  to  demand,  from  any  of 
those  who  usually  compose  a  house  of 
commons,  the  assertion  that  the  practice 
of  the  church  of  Rome  in  the  invocation 
of  saints  is  idolatrous  ;  since,  even  on  the 
hypothesis  that  a  country  gentleman  has 
a  clear  notion  of  what  is  meant  by  idola 
try,  he  is,  in  many  cases,  wholly  out  of 
the  way  of  knowing  what  the  church  of 
Rome,  or  any  of  its  members,  believe  or 
practise.  The  invocation  of  saints,  as 
held  and  explained  by  that  church  in  the 
council  of  Trent,  is  surely  not  idolatrous, 
with  whatever  error  it  may  be  charged ; 
but  the  practice  at  least  of  uneducated 
Roman  catholics  seems  fully  to  justify-  the 
declaration  ;  understanding  it  to  refer  to 


CIIA.  II.  —  1673-85.     EXCLUSION  OF  THE  DUKE  OF  YORK.     407 

which  shut  the  catholic  peers  out  of  parliament,  went  upon 
the  exclusion  bill.  Their  dissolution  put  a  stop  to  this,  and 
in  the  next  parliament  the  lords  rejected  it.1 

The  right  of  excluding  an  unworthy  heir  from  the  succes 
sion  was  supported  not  only  by  the  plain  and  fundamental 
principles  of  civil  society,  which  establish  the  interest  of  the 
people  to  be  the  paramount  object  of  political  institutions, 
but  by  those  of  the  English  constitution.  It  had  always  been 
the  better  opinion  among  lawyers  that  the  reigning  king,  with 
consent  of  parliament,  was  competent  to  make  any  changes 
in  the  inheritance  of  the  crown  ;  and  this,  besides  the  acts 
passed  under  Henry  VIII.  empowering  him  to  name  his 
successor,  was  expressly  enacted,  with  heavy  penalties 
against  such  as  should  contradict  it,  in  the  thirteenth  year 
of  Elizabeth.  The  contrary  doctrine,  indeed,  if  pressed  to 
its  legitimate  consequences,  would  have  shaken  all  the  stat 
utes  that  limit  the  prerogative  ;  since,  if  the  analogy  of  en 
tails  in  private  inheritances  were  to  be  resorted  to,  and  the 
existing  legislature  should  be  supposed  incompetent  to  alter 
the  line  of  succession,  they  could  as  little  impair  as  they 
could  alienate  the  indefeasible  rights  of  the  heir  ;  nor  could 
he  be  bound  by  restrictions  to  which  he  had  never  given  his 
assent.  It  seemed  strange  to  maintain  that  the  parliament 
could  reduce  a  future  king  of  England  to  the  condition  of  a 
doge  of  Venice  by  shackling  and  taking  away  his  authority, 
and  yet  could  not  divest  him  of  a  title  which  they  could  ren 
der  little  better  than  a  mockery.  Those  accordingly  who 
disputed  the  legislative  omnipotence  of  parliament  did  not 
hesitate  to  assert  that  statutes  infringing  the  prerogative 
were  null  of  themselves.  With  the  court  lawyers  conspired 
the  clergy,  who  pretended  these  matters  of  high  policy  and 
constitutional  law  to  be  within  their  province,  and,  with 
hardly  an  exception,  took  a  zealous  part  against  the  ex 
clusion.  It  was  indeed  a  measure  repugnant  to  the  common 
prejudices  of  mankind,  who,  without  entering  on  the  abstract 
competency  of  parliament,  are  naturally  accustomed  in  an 

certain   superstitions,    countenanced    or  bill  was  carried.  May  21,  1679,  by   207 

riot  eradicated  by  their  clergy.     I  have  to  128.  The  debates  are  in  Parliamentary 

sometimes  thought  that  the  legislator  of  History,  1125,  et  post.     In  the  next  par- 

a  great  nation  sets  off  oddly  by  solemnly  liament  it  was  carried  without  a  division, 

professing    theological     positions    about  Sir  Leoline  Jenkins  alone  seems  to  have 

which  he  knows  nothing,  and  swearing  to  taken  the  high  ground  that  •'  parliament 

the  possession  of  property  which  he  does  cannot  disinherit  the  heir  of  the  crown  ; 

not  enjoy.     [1827.]  and  that,  if  such  an  act  should  pass,  it 

i  The  second  reading  of  the  exclusion  would  be  invalid  in  itself."     Id.  1191. 


408  EXCLUSION   OF   THE  DUKE   OF  YORK.      CHAP.  XII. 

hereditary  monarchy  to  consider  the  next  heir  as  possessed 
of  a  right,  of  which,  except  through  necessity  or  notorious 
criminality,  he  cannot  be  justly  divested.  The  mere  profes 
sion  of  a  religion  different  from  the  established  does  not 
seem,  abstractedly  considered,  an  adequate  ground  for  un 
settling  the  regular  order  of  inheritance.  Yet  such  was  the 
narrow  bigotry  of  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries, 
which  died  away  almost  entirely  among  protestants  in  the 
next,  that  even  the  trifling  differences  between  Lutherans 
and  Calvinists  had  frequently  led  to  alternate  persecutions  in 
the  German  states,  as  a  prince  of  one  or  the  other  denomi 
nation  happened  to  assume  the  government.  And  the  Rom 
ish  religion  in  particular  was  in  that  age  of  so  restless  and 
malignant  a  character,  that,  unless  the  power  of  the  crown 
should  be  far  more  strictly  limited  than  had  hitherto  been 
the  case,  there  must  be  a  very  serious  danger  from  any  sov 
ereign  of  that  faith  ;  and  the  letters  of  Coleman,  as  well  as 
other  evidences,  made  it  manifest  that  the  duke  of  York  was 
engaged  in  a  scheme  of  general  conversion,  which,  from  his 
arbitrary  temper  and  the  impossibility  of  succeeding  by  fair 
means,  it  was  just  to  apprehend,  must  involve  the  subversion 
of  all  civil  liberty.  Still  this  was  not  distinctly  perceived 
by  persons  at  a  distance  from  the  scene,  imbued,  as  most  of 
the  gentry  were,  with  the  principles  of  the  old  cavaliers  and 
those  which  the  church  had  inculcated.  The  king,  though 
hated  by  the  dissenters,  retained  much  of  the  affections  of 
that  party,  who  forgave  the  vices  they  deplored,  to  his 
father's  memory  and  his  personal  affability.  It  appeared 
harsh  and  disloyal  to  force  his  consent  to  the  exclusion  of  a 
brother  in  whom  he  saw  no  crime,  and  to  avoid  which  he 
offered  every  possible  expedient.1  There  will  always  be 
found  in  the  people  of  England  a  strong  unwillingness  to 
force  the  reluctance  of  their  sovereign  —  a  latent  feeling,  of 
which  parties  in  the  heat  of  their  triumphs  are  seldom  aware, 
because  it  does  not  display  itself  until  the  moment  of  reac 
tion.  And  although,  in  the  less  settled  times  before  the  Rev 
olution,  this  personal  loyalty  was  highly  dangerous,  and  may 
still,  no  doubt,  sometimes  break  out  so  as  to  frustrate  objects 
of  high  import  to  the  public  weal,  it  is  on  the  whole  a  salu- 

i  AVhile  the  exclusion  bill  was  passing  it  should  come  up;  telling  them,  at  tho 

t  the  commons,  the  king  took  the  pains  to  same  time,  let  what  would   happen,   he 

speak   himself  to  almost  every  lord,    to  would  never  suffer  such  a  villauous  bill 

dissuade  him  from  assenting  to  it  when  to  pass.    Life  of  James,  553. 


CHA.  II.  — 1673-85.      SHAFTESBURY  AND  MONMOUTH.          409 

tary  temper  for  the  conservation  of  the  monarchy,  which 
may  require  such  a  barrier  against  the  encroachments  of 
factions  and  the  fervid  passions  of  the  multitude. 

The  bill  of  exclusion  was  drawn  with  as  much  regard  to 
the  inheritance  of  the  duke  of  York's  daughters 
as  they  could  reasonably  demand,  or  as  any  law-  sLftlSt 
yer  encased  for  them  could  have  shown  ;  though  and  ^on" 

*/  >      moutii. 

something  different  seems  to  be  insinuated  by 
Burnet.  It  provided  that  the  imperial  crown  of  England 
should  descend  to  and  be  enjoyed  by  such  person  or  persons 
successively  during  the  life  of  the  duke  of  York  as  should 
have  inherited  or  enjoyed  the  same  in  case  he  were  naturally 
dead.  If  the  princess  of  Orange  was  not  expressly  named 
(which,  the  bishop  tells  us,  gave  a  jealousy,  as  though  it 
were  intended  to  keep  that  matter  still  undetermined),,  this 
silence  was  evidently  justified  by  the  possible  contingency  of 
the  birth  of  a  son  to  the  duke,  whose  right  there  was  no  in 
tention  in  the  framers  of  the  bill  to  defeat.  But  a  large  part 
of  the  opposition  had  unfortunately  other  objects  in  view.  It 
had  been  the  great  error  of  those  who  withstood  the  arbi 
trary  counsels  of  Charles  II.  to  have  admitted  into  their 
closest  confidence,  and  in  a  considerable  degree  to  the  man 
agement  of  their  party,  a  man  so  destitute  of  all  honest  prin 
ciple  as  the  earl  of  Shaftesbury.  Under  his  contaminating 
influence  their  passions  became  more  untractable,  their  con 
nections  more  seditious  and  democrat ical,  their  schemes  more 
revolutionary  ;  and  they  broke  away  more  and  more  from  the 
line  of  national  opinion,  till  a  fatal  reaction  involved  them 
selves  in  ruin,  and  exposed  the  cause  of  public  liberty  to 
its  most  imminent  peril.  The  countenance  and  support  of 
Shaftesbury  brought  forward  that  unconstitutional  and  most 
impolitic  scheme  of  the  duke  of  Monmouth's  succession. 
There  could  hardly  be  a  greater  insult  to  a  nation  used  to 
respect  its  hereditary  line  of  kings  than  to  set  up  the  bastard 
of  a  prostitute,  without  the  least  pretence  of  personal  excel 
lence  or  public  services,  against  a  princess  of  known  virtue 
and  attachment  to  the  protestant  religion.  And  the  effron 
tery  of  this  attempt  was  aggravated  by  the  libels  eagerly  cir 
culated  to  dupe  the  credulous  populace  into  a  belief  of  Mon 
mouth's  legitimacy.  The  weak  young  man,  lured  on  to  de 
struction  by  the  arts  of  intriguers  and  the  applause  of  the 
multitude,  gave  just  offence  to  sober-minded  patriots,  who 


410 


UNSTEADINESS   OF   THE  KING. 


CHAP.  XII. 


knew  where  the  true  hopes  of  public  liberty  were  anchored, 
by  a  kind  of  triumphal  procession  through  parts  of  the  coun 
try,  and  by  other  indications  of  a  presumptuous  ambition.1 

If  any  apology  can  be  made  for  the  encouragement  given 
by  some  of  the  whig  party  (for  it  was  by  no  means  general) 
to  the  pretensions  of  Monmouth,  it  must  be  found  in  their 
knowledge  of  the  king's  affection  for  him,  which  furnished  a 
hope  that  he  might  more  easily  be  brought  in  to  the  exclu 
sion  of  his  brother  for  the  sake  of  so  beloved  a  child  than 
for  the  prince  of  Orange.  And  doubtless  there  was  a  period 
when  Charles's  acquiescence  in  the  exclusion  did  not  appear 
so  unattainable  as,  from  his  subsequent  line  of  behavior,  we 
are  apt  to  consider  it.  It  appears  from  the  recently  pub 
lished  Life  of  James  that,  in  the  autumn  of  1680,  the  em 
barrassment  of  the  king's  situation,  and  the  influence  of  the 
duchess  of  Portsmouth,  who  had  gone  over  to  the  exclu- 
Unsteadi-  sionists,  made  him  seriously  deliberate  on  aban- 
the  king.  doning  his  brother.2  Whether  from  natural  insta- 


i  Ralph,  p.  498.  The  atrocious  libel, 
entitled,  'Au  Appeal  from  the  Country 
to  the  City,'  published  in  1679,  and  visu 
ally  ascribed  to  Ferguson  (though  said, 
in  Biog.  Brit.,  art.  L'ESTRAXGE,  to  be 
written  by  Charles  Blount),  was  almost 
sufficient  of  itself  to  excuse  the  return  of 
public  opinion  towards  the  throne.  State 
Tracts,  temp.  Car.  II.  ;  Ralph,  i.  476 ; 
Parl.  Hist.  iv-  Appendix.  The  king  is 
personally  struck  at  in  this  tract  with  the 
utmost  fury  ;  the  queen  is  called  Agrip- 
pina,  in  allusion  to  the  infamous  charges 
of  Oates;  Monmouth  is  held  up  as  the 
hope  of  the  country.  "He  will  stand  by 
you,  therefore  you  ought  to  stand  by  him. 
He  who  hath  the  worst  title  always  makes 
the  best  king."  One  Harris  was  tried  for 
publishing  this  pamphlet.  The  jury  at 
first  found  him  guilty  of  selling — an 
equivocal  verdict,  by  which  they  probably 
meant  to  deny,  or  at  least  to  disclaim,  any 
assertion  of  the  libellous  character  of  the 
publication.  But  Scroggs  telling  them  it 
was  their  province  to  say  guilty  or  not 
guilty,  they  returned  a  verdict  of  guilty. 
State  Trials,  vii.  925. 

Another  arrow,  dipped  in  the  same 
poison,  was  a  '  Letter  to  a  Person  of  Hon 
or  concerning  the  Black  Box.'  Somers 
Tracts,  viii.  189.  The  story  of  a  contract 
of  marriage  between  the  king  and  Mrs. 
Waters,  Monmouth's  mother,  concealed 
in  a  black  box,  had  lately  been  current; 
and  the  former  had  taken  pains  to  expose 
its  falsehood  by  a  public  examination  of 
the  gentleman  whose  name  had  been 


made  use  of.  This  artful  tract  is  intend 
ed  to  keep  up  the  belief  of  Monmoutlrs 
legitimacy,  and  even  to  graft  it  on  the 
undeniable  falsehood  of  that  tale;  as  if 
it  had  been  purposely  fabricated  to  delude 
the  people,  by  setting  them  on  a  wrong 
scent.  See  also  another  libel  of  the  same 
class,  p.  197. 

Though  Monmouth's  illegitimacy  is 
past  all  question,  it  has  been  observed  by 
Harris  that  the  princess  of  Orange,  in 
writing  to  her  brother  about  Mrs.  Waters, 
in  1655,  twice  names  her  as  his  wife] 
Thurloe,  i.  665,  quoted  in  Harris's  Lives, 
iv.  168.  But.  though  this  was  a  scanda 
lous  indecency  on  her  part,  it  proves  no 
more  than  that  Charles,  like  other  young 
men  in  the  heat  of  passion,  was  foolish 
enough  to  give  that  appellation  to  his 
mistress,  and  that  his  sister  humored 
him  in  it. 

Sidney  mentions  a  strange  piece  of  Mon 
mouth's  presumption.  When  he  went 
to  dine  with  the  city  in  October,  1680,  it 
was  remarked  that  the  bar,  by  which  the 
heralds  denote  illegitimacy,  had  been 
taken  off  the  royal  arms  on  his  coach. 
Letters  to  Saville,  p.  54. 

2  Life  of  James,  592,  et  post ;  compare 
Dalrymple,  p.  265,  et  post.  Barillon  was 
evidently  of  opinion  that  the  king  would 
finally  abandon  his  brother.  Sunderland 
joined  the  duchess  of  Portsmouth,  and 
was  one  of  the  thirty  peers  who  voted 
for  the  bill  in  November,  1680.  James 
charges  Godolphin  also  with  deserting 
him,  p.  615.  But  his  name  does  not  ap- 


CHA.  II.  — 1673-85.   DESIGNS   OF   THE  DUKE  OF   YORK.         411 

bility  of  judgment,  from  the  steady  adherence  of  France 
to  the  duke  of  York,  or  from  observing  the  great  strength 
of  the  tory  party  in  the  house  of  lords,  where  the  bill 
was  rejected  by  a  majority  of  G3  to  30,  he  soon  returned 
to  his  former  disposition.  It  was  long,  however,  before  he 
treated  James  with  perfect  cordiality.  Conscious  of  his  own 
insincerity  in  religion,  which  the  duke's  bold  avowal  of  an 
obnoxious  creed  seemed  to  reproach,  he  was  provoked  at 
bearing  so  much  of  the  odium  and  incurring  so  many  of  the 
difficulties  which  attended  a  profession  that  he  had  not  ven 
tured  to  make.  He  told  Hyde,  before  the  dissolution  of  the 
parliament  of  1680,  that  it  would  not  be  in  his  power  to  pro 
tect  his  brother  any  longer,  if  he  did  not  conform  and  go  to 
church.1  Hyde  himself,  and  the  duke's  other  friends,  had 
never  ceased  to  urge  him  on  this  subject.  Their  importunity 
was  renewed  by  the  king's  order,  even  after  the  dissolution 
of  the  Oxford  parliament ;  and  it  seems  to  have  been  the 
firm  persuasion  of  most  about  the  court  that  he  could  only 
be  preserved  by  conformity  to  the  protestant  religion.  He 
justly  apprehended  the  consequences  of  a  refusal ;  but,  in 
flexibly  conscientious  on  this  point,  he  braved  whatever 
might  arise  from  the  timidity  or  disaffection  of  the  ministers 
and  the  selfish  fickleness  of  the  king. 

In  the  apprehensions  excited  by  the  king's  unsteadiness 
and  the  defection  of  the  duchess  of  Portsmouth,  he  deemed 
his  fortunes  so  much  in  jeopardy  as  to  have  resolved  on  ex 
citing  a  civil  war,  rather  than  yield  to  the  exclusion.  He 
had  already  told  Barillon  that  the  royal  authority  could  be 
reestablished  by  no  other  means.2  The  episcopal  party  in 
Scotland  had  gone  such  lengths  that  they  could  hardly  be 
safe  under  any  other  king.  The  catholics  of  England  were 
of  course  devoted  to  him.  With  the  help  of  these  he  hoped 
to  show  himself  so  formidable  that  Charles  would  find  it  his 
interest  to  quit  that  cowardly  line  of  politics  to  which  he  was 
sacrificing  his  honor  and  affections.  Louis,  never  insensible 
to  any  occasion  of  rendering  England  weak  and  miserable, 
directed  his  ambassador  to  encourage  the  duke  in  this  guilty 
project  with  the  promise  of  assistance.3  It  seems  to  have 

pear  in  the  protest  signed  by  twenty -five  l  Life  of  James,  p.  657. 

peers,  though  that  of  the  privy  seal /Lord  2  n  est  persuade  que  1'autorite  royale 

Anglesea,    does.     The   duchess  of  Ports-  ne  se  peut  retablir  en  Angleterre  que  par 

mouth  sat  near  the  commons  at  Stafford's  une  guerre  civile.     Aug.  29,  lb'30.     Dal- 

trial.    '•dispensing   her   sweetmeats   and  rymple.  265. 

gracious  looks  among  them.''    P.  638.  ^  Dalrymple,  277.     Nov.  1680. 


412  EXPEDIENTS   TO   AVOID  CHAP.  XII. 

been  prevented  by  the  wisdom  or  public  spirit  of  Churchill, 
who  pointed  out  to  Barillon  the  absurdity  of  supposing  that 
the  duke  could  stand  by  himself  in  Scotland.  This  scheme 
of  lighting  up  the  flames  of  civil  war  in  three  kingdoms, 
for  James's  private  advantage,  deserves  to  be  more  remarked 
than  it  has  hitherto  been  at  a  time  when  his  apologists  seem 
to  have  become  numerous.  If  the  designs  of  Russell  and 
Sidney  for  the  preservation  of  their  country's  liberty  are 
blamed  as  rash  and  unjustifiable,  what  name  shall  we  give 
to  the  project  of  maintaining  the  pretensions  of  an  individ 
ual  by  means  of  rebellion  and  general  bloodshed  ? 

It  is  well  known  that  those  who  took  a  concern  in  the 
maintenance  of  religion  and  liberty  were  much  divided  as  to 
the  best  expedients  for  securing  them  ;  some,  who  thought 
the  exclusion  too  violent,  dangerous,  or  impracticable,  pre 
ferring  the  enactment  of  limitations  on  the  prerogatives  of  a 
catholic  king.  This  had  begun,  in  fact,  from  the  court,  who 
passed  a  bill  through  the  house  of  lords  in  1 677,  for  the  se 
curity,  as  it  was  styled,  of  the  protestant  religion.  This 
provided  that  a  declaration  and  oath  against  transubstantia- 
tion  should  be  tendered  to  every  king  within  fourteen  days 
after  his  accession  ;  that,  on  his  refusal  to  take  it,  the  eccle 
siastical  benefices  in  the  gift  of  the  crown  should  vest  in 
the  bishops,  except  that  the  king  should  name  to  every 
vacant  see  one  out  of  three  persons  proposed  to  him  by  the 
bishops  of  the  province.  It  enacted  also  that  the  children 
of  a  king  refusing  such  a  test  should  be  educated  by  the 
archbishop  and  two  or  three  more  prelates.  This  bill 
dropped  in  the  commons  ;  and  Marvell  speaks  of  it  as  an 
insidious  stratagem  of  the  ministry.1  It  is  more  easy,  how 
ever,  to  give  hard  names  to  a  measure  originating  with  an 
obnoxious  government  than  to  prove  that  it  did  not  afford  a 
considerable  security  to  the  established  church,  and  impose 
a  very  remarkable  limitation  on  the  prerogative.  But  the 
opposition  in  the  house  of  commons  had  probably  conceived 
their  scheme  of  exclusion,  and  would  not  hearken  to  any 

l  Marvell's  Growth  of  Popery,  in  State  have  been  that  the  children  of  the  royal 

Tracts,  temp.  Oar.  IT.,  p.  98.    Par!.  Hist,  family  were    to  be  consigned  for  educa- 

853.     The  second  reading  was  carried  by  tion  to  the  sole  government  of  bishops. 

127  to  88.     Sergeant  Maynard,  who  was  The    duke   of  York   and    thirteen  other 

probably  not  in  the  secrets  of  his  party,  peers  protested  against  this  bill,  not  all 

seems  to  have   been   surprised  at   their  of  them  from  the  same  motives,  as  may 

opposition.     An  objection  with  Marvell,  be  collected  from  their  names.      Lords' 

and  uot  by  any  means  a  bad  one,  svould  Journals,  13th  and  15th  March,  1679 


CHA.  II.  — 1673-85.  THE  EXCLUSION.  413 

compromise.  As  soon  as  the  exclusion  became  the  topic  of 
open  discussion,  the  king  repeatedly  offered  to  grant  every 
security  that  could  be  demanded  consistently  with  the  lineal 
succession.  Hollis,  Halifax,  and  for  a  time  Essex,  as  well 
as  several  eminent  men  in  the  lower  house,  were  in  favor  of 
limitations.1  But  those  which  they  intended  to  insist  upon 
were  such  encroachments  on  the  constitutional  Expedients 
authority  of  the  crown,  that,  except  a  title  and  rev-  to  avoid  the 
enue,  which  Charles  thought  more  valuable  than  ex 
all  the  rest,  a  popish  king  would  enjoy  no  one  attribute  of  roy 
alty.  The  king  himself,  on  the  80th  of  April,  1670,  before 
the  heats  on  the  subject  had  become  so  violent  as  they  were 
the  next  year,  offered  not  only  to  secure  all  ecclesiastical 
preferments  from  the  control  of  a  popish  successor,  but  to 
provide  that  the  parliament  in  being  at  a  demise  of  the 
crown,  or  the  last  that  had  been  dissolved,  should  imme 
diately  sit  and  be  indissoluble  for  a  certain  time  ;  that  none 
of  the  privy  council,  nor  judges,  lord-lieutenant,  deputy- 
lieutenant,  nor  officer  of  the  navy,  should  be  appointed  dur 
ing  the  reign  of  a  catholic  king,  without  consent  of  parlia 
ment.  He  offered  at  the  same  time  most  readily  to  consent 
to  any  further  provision  that  could  occur  to  the  wisdom  of 
parliament,  for  the  security  of  religion  and  liberty  consist 
ently  with  the  right  of  succession.  Halifax,  the  eloquent 
and  successful  opponent  of  the  exclusion,  was  the  avowed 
champion  of  limitations.  It  was  proposed,  in  addition  to 
these  offers  of  the  king,  that  the  duke,  in  case  of  his  acces 
sion,  should  have  no  negative  voice  on  bills  ;  that  he  should 
dispose  of  no  civil  or  military  posts  without  the  consent  of 
parliament  ;  that  a  council  of  forty-one,  nominated  by  the 
two  houses,  should  sit  permanently  during  the  recess  or  in 
terval  of  parliament,  with  power  of  appointing  to  all  vacant 
offices,  subject  to  the  future  approbation  of  the  lords  and 
commons.'2  These  extraordinary  innovations  would,  at  least 
for  the  time,  have  changed  our  constitution  into  a  republic  ; 
and  justly  appeared  to  many  persons  more  revolutionary 
than  an  alteration  in  the  course  of  succession.  The  duke 
of  York  looked  on  them  with  dismay  ;  Charles,  indeed,  pri- 

i  Lords    Russell    and    Cavendish,    sir  Shaftesbury,  for  opposite  reasons,  stood 

W.  Coventry,  and  sir  Thomas  Littleton,  alone  in  the  council  against  the  scheme 

seem    to    have    been    in  favor  of   limita-  of  limitations.    Temple's  Memoirs. 

tions.     Lord  J.  Russell,   p.  42.      Ralph,  2  Commons'  Journals,  23d  Nov.  1680, 

446.  Sidney's  Letters,  p.  32.  Temple  and  8th  Jan.  1681. 


414     EXPEDIENTS   TO  AVOID   THE  EXCLUSION.      CHAP.  XII. 

vately  declared  that  he  would  never  consent  to  such  infringe 
ments  of  the  prerogative.1  It  is  not,  however,  easy  to  per 
ceive  how  he  could  have  escaped  from  the  necessity  of  ad 
hering  to  his  own  propositions,  if  the  house  of  commons 
would  have  relinquished  the  bill  of  exclusion.  The  prince 
of  Orange,  who  was  doubtless  in  secret  not  averse  to  the  lat 
ter  measure,  declared  strongly  against  the  plan  of  restric 
tions,  which  a  protestant  successor  might  not  find  it  practica 
ble  to  shake  off.  Another  expedient,  still  more  ruinous  to 
James  than  that  of  limitations,  was  what  the  court  itself 
suggested  in  the  Oxford  parliament,  that,  the  duke  retaining 
the  title  of  king,  a  regent  should  be  appointed,  in  the  per 
son  of  the  princess  of  Orange,  with  all  the  royal  preroga 
tives  ;  nay,  that  the  duke,  with  his  pageant  crown  on  his 
head,  should  be  banished  from  England  during  his  life.2 
This  proposition,  which  is  a  great  favorite  with  Burnet, 
appears  liable  to  the  same  objections  as  were  justly  urged 
against  a  similar  scheme  at  the  revolution.  It  was  certain 
that  in  either  case  James  would  attempt  to  obtain  possession 
of  power  by  force  of  arms  ;  and  the  law  of  England  would 
not  treat  very  favorably  those  who  should  resist  an  acknowl 
edged  king  in  his  natural  capacity,  while  the  statute  of  Henry 
VII.  would,  legally  speaking,  aftbrd  a  security  to  the  adher 
ents  of  a  de  facto  sovereign. 

Upon  the  whole,  it  is  very  unlikely,  when  we  look  at  the 
general  spirit  and  temper  of  the  nation,  its  predilection  for 
the  ancient  laws,  its  dread  of  commonwealth  and  fanatical 
principles,  the  tendency  of  the  upper  ranks  to  intrigue  and 
corruption,  the  influence  and  activity  of  the  church,  the  bold 
counsels  and  haughty  disposition  of  James  himself,  that 
either  the  exclusion,  or  such  extensive  limitations  as  were 
suggested  in  lieu  of  it,  could  have  been  carried  into  effect 
with  much  hope  of  a  durable  settlement.  It  would,  I  should 
conceive,  have  been  practicable  to  secure  the  independence 
of  the?  judges,  to  exclude  unnecessary  placemen  and  notorious 

1  Life  of  James,  634,  671.     Dalrymple,  termined  them  to  persist  in  their  former 
p.  307.  scheme.     Reresby  says  (p.  19).  confirmed 

2  Dalrymple,   p.    301.      Life  of  James,  by  Parl.  Hist.   132,  it  was  supported  by 
660,    671.      The    duke   gave  himself  up  sir  Thomas  Littleton,  who  is  said  to  have 
for  lost  when  he  heard  of  the  clause  in  been  originally  against  the  bill  of  exclu- 
tlie  king's  speech  declaring  his  readiness  sion,  as  well  as   sir  William    Coventry, 
to  hearken  to  any  expedient  but  the  ex-  Sidney's  Letters,  p.  32.     It  was  opposed 
elusion.     Birch  and  Hampclen,  he  says,  by  Jones,  Winnington,  Booth,    and,  if 
were  in  favor  of   this  :    but  Fitzharri's's  the  Parliamentary  History  be  right,  by 
business  set  the  house  in  a  flame,  and  de-  Ilampdeu  and  Birch. 


CHA.  II.  — 1673-85.  WHIG  AXD   TORY.  415 

pensioners  from  the  house  of  commons,  to  render  the  distri 
bution  of  money  among  its  members  penal,  to  remove  from 
the  protestant  dissenters,  by  a  full  toleration,  all  temptation 
to  favor  the  court,  and,  above  all,  to  put  down  the  standing 
army.  Though  none  perhaps  of  these  provisions  would  have 
prevented  the  attempts  of  this  and  the  next  reign  to  intro 
duce  arbitrary  power,  they  would  have  rendered  them  still 
more  grossly  illegal ;  and,  above  all,  they  would  have  saved 
that  unhappy  revolution  of  popular  sentiment  which  gave  the 
court  encouragement  and  temporary  success. 

It  was  in  the  year  1G71)  that  the  words  Whig  and  Tory 
were  first  heard  in  their  application  to  English  fac-  Xames  of 
tions ;  and,  though  as  senseless  as  any  cant  terms  whig  and 
that  could  be  devised,  they  became  instantly  as  tor;y' 
familiar  in  use  as  they  have  since  continued.  There  were 
then  indeed  questions  in  agitation  which  rendered  the  distinc 
tion  more  broad  and  intelligible  than  it  has  generally  been  in 
later  times.  One  of  these,  and  the  most  important,  was  the 
bill  of  exclusion  ;  in  which,  as  it  was  usually  debated,  the  re 
publican  principle,  that  all  positive  institutions  of  society  are 
in  order  to  the  general  good,  came  into  collision  with  that  of 
monarchy,  which  rests  on  the  maintenance  of  a  royal  line,  as 
either  the  end,  or  at  least  the  necessary  means,  of  lawful 
government.  But,  as  the  exclusion  was  confessedly  among 
those  extraordinary  measures  to  which  men  of  tory  principles 
are  sometimes  compelled  to  resort  in  great  emergencies,  and 
which  no  rational  whig  espouses  at  any  other  time,  we  shall 
better  perhaps  discern  the  formation  of  these  grand  political 
sects  in  the  petitions  for  the  sitting  of  parliament,  and  in  the 
counter  addresses  of  the  opposite  party. 

In   the   spring  of  1671)   Charles  established  a  new  privy 
council,  by  the  advice  of  sir  William  Temple,  con-  Xew  council 
sisting  in  great  part  of  those  eminent  men  in  both  formed  by 
houses  of  parliament  who  had  been  most  prominent  ^p1^1"11 
in  their  opposition  to  the  late  ministry.1     He  pub- 

1  Temple's  Memoirs.  He  says  their  for  the  king  had  declared  he  would  take 
revenues  in  land  or  offices  amounted  to  no  measure,  nor  even  choose  any  new 
300,0(XM.  per  annum  ;  whereas  those  of  counsellor,  without  their  consent.  But 
the  house  of  commons  seldom  exceeded  the  extreme  disadvantage  of  the  position 
400,000i!.  The  king  objected  much  to  in  which  this  placed  the  crown  rendered 
admitting  Halifax;  but  himself  proposed  it  absolutely  certain  that  it  was  not  sub- 
Shaftesbury.  much  against  Temple's  mitted  to  with  sincerity.  Lady  Ports- 
wishes.  The  funds  in  Holland  rose  on  mouth  told  Barillon  the  new  ministry 
the  news.  Barillon  was  displeased,  and  was  formed  in  order  to  get  money  from 
said  it  was  making  "  des  etats,  et  non  des  parliament.  Another  motive,  no  doubt, 
couseils  j  :'  which  was  not  without  weight,  was  to  prevent  the  exclusion  bill. 


416  NEW  MINISTRY.  CHAP.  XII. 

licly  declared  his  resolution  to  govern  entirely  by  the  advice 
of  this  council  and  that  of  parliament.  The  duke  of  York 
was  kept  in  what  seemed  a  sort  of  exile  at  Brussels.1  But 
the  just  suspicion  attached  to  the  king's  character  prevented 
the  commons  from  placing  much  confidence  in  this  new  min 
istry;  and,  as  frequently  happens,  abated  their  esteem  for 
those  who,  with  the  purest  intentions,  had  gone  into  the 
council.2  They  had  soon  cause  to  perceive  that  their  distrust 
had  not  been  excessive.  The  ministers  were  constantly 
beaten  in  the  house  of  lords ;  an  almost  certain  test,  in  our 
government,  of  the  court's  insincerity.3  The  parliament  was 
first  prorogued,  then  dissolved ;  against  the  advice,  in  the 
latter  instance,  of  the  majority  of  that  council  by  whom  the 
king  had  pledged  himself  to  be  directed.  A  new  parliament, 
Lono-pro-  after  being  summoned  to  meet  in  October,  1679, 
rogation  of  was  prorogued  for  a  twelvemonth  without  the 
avowed  concurrence  of  any  member  of  the  council. 
Lord  Russell,  and  others  of  the  honester  party,  withdrew 
from  a  board  where  their  presence  was  only  asked  in  mock 
ery  or  deceit ;  and  the  whole  specious  scheme  of  Temple 
came  to  nothing  before  the  conclusion  of  the  year  which  had 
seen  it  displayed.4  Its  author,  chagrined  at  the  disappoint 
ment  of  his  patriotism  and  his  vanity,  has  sought  the  causes 
of  failure  in  the  folly  of  Monmouth  and  perverseness  of 
Shaftesbury.  He  was  not  aware,  at  least  in  their  full  extent, 
of  the  king's  intrigues  at  this  period.  Charles,  who  had  been 

l  Life  of  James,  558.  On  the  king's  time  to  Sunderland.  "  If  he  and  two 
sudden  illness.  Aug.  22,  1679.  the  ruling  more  [Essex  and  Halifax]  can  well  agree 
ministers,  Halifax.  Sunderland,  and  Es-  among  themselves,  I  believe  they  will 
sex,  alarmed  at  the  anarchy  which  might  have  the  management  of  almost  all  busi- 
come  on  his  death,  of  which  Shaftesbury  ness,  and  may  bring  much  honor  to 
and  Monmouth  would  profit,  sent  over  themselves  and  good  to  our  nation." 
for  the  duke,  but  soon  endeavored  to  April  21,  1679.  But  he  writes  after- 
make  him  go  into  Scotland;  and,  after  a  wards,  Sept.  8,  that  Halifax  and  Essex 
struggle  against  the  king's  tricks  to  out-  were  become  very  unpopular,  p.  50. 
wit  them,  succeeded  in  this  object.  Id.  "The  bare  being  preferred."  says  secre- 
p.  570,  et  post.  tary  Coventry,  "'maketh  some  of  them 

-  Temple.     Reresby,  p.  89.      "So  true  suspected,  though  not  criminal."     Lord 

it  is,"  he  says,  "  that  there  is  no  wearing  J.  Russell's  Life  of  Lord  Russell,  p.  90. 

the  court  and  country  livery  together."  3  See  the  protests  in  1679.  passim. 

Thus  also  Algernon  Sidney,  in  his  letters  *  Temple's  Memoirs.      Life  of  James, 

to  Saville,  p.  16  :  —  "  The  king  certainly  581.     [An  article  in  the  London  Gazette, 

inclines  not  to  be  so  stiff  as  formerly  in  Jan.  30,  1680,  is  rather  amusing.    •'  This 

advancing  only  those  that  exalt  preroga-  evening    the  lord  Russell,  the  lord  Gav- 

tive ;    but  the  earl    of  Essex,  and  some  endish.  sir  Henry  Capel,  and  Mr.  Powle, 

others  that  are  coming  into  play  there-  prayed  his  Majesty  to  give  them  leave  to 

upon,  cannot  avoid   being  suspected  of  withdraw    from   the    council-board.     To 

having   intentions    different   from    what  which  his  Majesty  was  pleased  to  answer, 

they  have  hitherto   professed."     He  as-  '  With  all  his  heart.'"  —  1845.] 
cribed  the   change   of  ministry    at   this 


CHA.  II.— 1073-85.        LONG  PROROGATION.  417 

induced  to  take  those  whom  he  most  disliked  into  his  council, 
with  the  hope  of  obtaining  money  from  parliament,  or  of  par 
rying  the  exclusion  bill,  and  had  consented  to  the  duke  of 
York's  quitting  England,  found  himself  inthralled  by  minis 
ters  whom  he  could  neither  corrupt  nor  deceive  ;  Essex,  the 
firm  and  temperate  friend  of  constitutional  liberty  in  power 
as  he  had  been  out  of  it,  and  Halifax,  not  yet  led  away  by 
ambition  or  resentment  from  the  cause  he  never  ceased  to 
approve.  He  had  recourse  therefore  to  his  accustomed 
refuge,  and  humbly  implored  the  aid  of  Louis  against  his 
own  council  and  parliament.  lie  conjured  his  patron  not  to 
lose  this  opportunity  of  making  England  forever  dependent  up 
on  France.  These  are  his  own  words,  such  at  least  as  Barillon 
attributes  to  him.1  In  pursuance  of  this  overture,  a  secret 
treaty  was  negotiated  between  the  two  kings ;  wherebv,  after 
a  long  haggling,  Charles,  for  a  pension  of  1,000,000  livres 
annually  during  three  years,  obliged  himself  not  to  assemble 
parliament  during  that  time.  This  negotiation  was  broken 
off  through  the  apprehensions  of  Hyde  and  Sunderland,  who 
had  been  concerned  in  it,  about  the  end  of  November,  1G79, 
before  the  long  prorogation  which  is  announced  in  the  Ga 
zette  by  a  proclamation  of  December  llth.  But,  the  resolu 
tion  having  been  already  taken  not  to  permit  the  meeting  of 
parliament,  Charles  persisted  in  it  as  the  only  means  of 
escaping  the  bill  of  exclusion,  even  when  deprived  of  the  pe 
cuniary  assistance  to  which  he  had  trusted. 

Though  the  king's  behavior  on  this  occasion  exposed  the 
fallacy  of  all  projects  for  reconciliation  with  the  house  of 
commons,  it  was  very  well  calculated  for  his  own  ends ;  nor 
was  there  any  part  of  his  reign  wherein  he  acted  with  so 
much  prudence  as  from  this  time  to  the  dissolution  of  the 
Oxford  parliament.  The  scheme  concerted  by  his  adversa 
ries,  and  already  put  in  operation,  of  pouring  in  petitions 
from  every  part  of  the  kingdom  for  the  meeting  of  parlia 
ment,  he  checked  in  the  outset  by  a  proclamation,  artfully 
drawn  up  by  chief-justice  North,  which,  while  it  kept  clear 
of  anything  so  palpably  unconstitutional  as  a  prohibition  of 
petitions,  served  the  purpose  of  manifesting  the  king's  dislike 
to  them,  and  encouraged  the  magistrates  to  treat  all  attempts 
that  way  as  seditious  and  illegal,  while  it  drew  over  the 
neutral  and  lukewarm  to  the  safer  and  stronger  side.2  Then 

i  Dalrymple,  pp.  230,  237.  -  See   Roger  North's   account   of  thi& 

VOL.  n.  27 


418  PETITIONS   AXD   ADDRESSES.  CHAP.  XII. 

were  first  ranged  against  each  other  the  hosts  of  Whig  and 
Tory,  under  their  banners  of  liberty  or  loyalty  ;  each  zealous, 
at  least  in  profession,  to  maintain  the  established  constitution, 
but  the  one  seeking  its  security  by  new  maxims  of  govern 
ment,  the  other  by  an  adherence  to  the  old. 1  It  must  be  ad 
mitted  that  petitions  to  the  king  from  bodies  of  his  subjects, 
titj  intended  to  advise  or  influence  him  in  the  exercise 

and  ad-  of  his  undoubted  prerogatives,  such  as  the  time  of 
calling  parliament  together,  familiar  as  they  may 
now  have  become,  had  no  precedent,  except  one  in  the  dark 
year  1640,  and  were  repugnant  to  the  ancient  principles  of 
our  monarchy.  The  cardinal  principle  of  toryism  is,  that 
the  king  ought  to  exercise  all  his  lawful  prerogatives  without 
the  interference,  or  unsolicited  advice,  even  of  parliament, 
much  less  of  the  people.  These  novel  efforts  therefore  were 
met  by  addresses  from  most  of  the  grand  juries,  from  the 
magistrates  at  quarter  sessions,  and  from  many  corporations, 
expressing  not  merely  their  entire  confidence  in  the  king,  but 
their  abhorrence  of  the  petitions  for  the  assembling  of  parlia 
ment  ;  a  term  which,  having  been  casually  used  in  one  ad 
dress,  became  the  watchword  of  the  whole  party.2  Some 
allowance  must  be  made  for  the  exertions  made  by  the  court, 
especially  through  the  judges  of  assize,  whose  charges  to 
grand  juries  were  always  of  a  political  nature.  Yet  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  the  strength  of  the  tories  manifested  it 
self  beyond  expectation.  Sluggish  and  silent  in  its  fields, 
like  the  animal  which  it  has  taken  for  its  type,  the  deep- 
rooted  loyalty  of  the  English  gentry  to  the  crown  may  escape 
a  superficial  observer,  till  some  circumstance  calls  forth  an 
indignant  and  furious  energy.  The  temper  shown  in  1680 
was  not  according  to  what  the  late  elections  would  have  led 
men  to  expect,  not  even  to  that  of  the  next  elections  for  the 
parliament  at  Oxford.  A  large  majority  returned  on  both 
these  occasions,  and  that  in  the  principal  counties  as  much  as 
in  corporate  towns,  were  of  the  whig  principle.  It  appears 
that  the  ardent  zeal  against  popery  in  the  smaller  freeholders 

court    stratagem.     Examen   of   Kennet,  originated  in  Scotland  in  1648,  and  was 

546.      The  proclamation  itself,  however,  given  to  those  violent    covenanters  who 

in  the  Gazette,  12th  Dec.  1679,  is  more  opposed  the  duke  of  Hamilton's  invasion 

strongly  worded  than  we  should  expect  of  England  in  order  to  restore  Charles  I. 

from  North's  account  of  it,  and  is  by  no  Somers    Tracts,   viii.    349.      Tory  was    a 

means  limited  to  tumultuous  petitions.  similar  nickname  for   some   of  the  wild 

1  [The  name  of  whig,    meaning   sour  Irish  in  Ulster.  — 1845.] 

milk,  as  is  well  known,  is  said   to  have  2  London  Gazettes  of  1680,  passim. 


CHA.  II.  — 1673-85.      VIOLENCE   OF   THE   COMMONS.  419 

must  have  overpowered  the  natural  influence  of  the  superior 
classes.  The  middling  and  lower  orders,  particularly  in 
towns,  were  clamorous  against  the  duke  of  York  and  the 
evil  counsellors  of  the  crown.  But  with  the  country  gentle 
men  popery  was  scarce  a  more  odious  word  than  fanaticism ; 
the  memory  of  the  late  reign  and  of  the  usurpation  was  still 
recent,  and  in  the  violence  of  the  commons,  in  the  insolence 
of  Monmouth  and  Shaftesbury,  in  the  bold  assaults  upon 
hereditary  right,  they  saw  a  faint  image  of  that  confusion 
which  had  once  impoverished  and  humbled  them.  Mean 
while  the  king's  dissimulation  was  quite  sufficient  for  these 
simple  loyalists ;  the  very  delusion  of  the  popish  plot  raised 
his  name  for  religion  in  their  eyes,  since  his  death  was  the 
declared  aim  of  the  conspirators ;  nor  did  he  fail  to  keep  alive 
this  favorable  prejudice  by  letting  that  imposture  take  its 
course,  and  by  enforcing  the  execution  of  the  penal  laws 
against  some  unfortunate  priests.1 

It  is  among  the  great  advantages  of  a  court  in  its  con 
tention  with  the  assertors  of  popular  privileges  that  it  can 
employ  a  circumspect  and  dissembling  policy,  which  is  never 
found  on  the  opposite  side.  The  demagogues  of  Yiolence 
faction,  or  the  aristocratic  leaders  of  a  numerous  of  the 
assembly,  even  if  they  do  not  feel  the  influence  commons- 
of  the  passions  they  excite,  which  is  rarely  the  case,  are 
urged  onwards  by  their  headstrong  followers,  and  would  both 
lay  themselves  open  to  the  suspicion  of  unfaithfulness  and 
damp  the  spirit  of  their  party  by  a  wary  and  temperate 
course  of  proceeding.  Yet  that  incautious  violence,  to  which 
ill-judging  men  are  tempted  by  the  possession  of  power,  must 
in  every  case,  and  especially  where  the  power  itself  is  deemed 
an  usurpation,  cast  them  headlong.  This  was  the  fatal  error 
of  that  house  of  commons  which  met  in  October,  1680;  and 
to  this  the  king's  triumph  may  chiefly  be  ascribed.  The  ad 
dresses  declaratory  of  abhorrence  of  petitions  for  the  meeting 
of  parliament  were  doubtless  intemperate  with  respect  to  the 
petitioners ;  but  it  was  preposterous  to  treat  them  as  vio 
lations  of  privilege.  A  few  precedents,  and  those  in  times 
of  much  heat  and  irregularity,  could  not  justify  so  flagrant 

l  David  Lewis  was  executed  at  Usk  for  and  unjust   towards   these   unfortunate 

saying  mass,  Aug.  27,  1679.  State  Trials,  men    than    Scroggs.     The   king,   as   his 

vii.   256.     Other  instances  occur  in  the  brother  tells  us,  came    unwillingly  into 

same  volume  :  see  especially  pp.  811,  839,  these  severities  to  prevent  worse.      Life 

849,  857.      Pemberton  was   more  severe  of  James,  583. 


420  VIOLENCE   OF   THE  COMMONS.  CIIAI>.  XII. 

an  encroachment  on  the  rights  of  the  private  subject  as  the 
commitment  of  men  for  a  declaration  so  little  affecting  the 
constitutional  rights  and  functions  of  parliament.1  The  ex 
pulsion,  indeed,  of  Withens,  their  own  member,  for  pro 
moting  one  of  these  addresses,  though  a  violent  measure, 
came  in  point  of  law  within  their  acknowledged  authority.2 
But  it  was  by  no  means  a  generally  received  opinion  in  that 
age  that  the  house  of  commons  had  an  unbounded  juris 
diction,  directly  or  indirectly,  over  their  constituents.  The 
lawyers,  being  chiefly  on  the  side  of  prerogative,  inclined  at 
least  to  limit  very  greatly  this  alleged  power  of  commitment 
for  breach  of  privilege  or  contempt  of  the  house.  It  had 
very  rarely,  in  fact,  been  exerted,  except  in  cases  of  serving 
legal  process  on  members  or  other  molestation,  before  the 
long  parliament  of  Charles  I. ;  a  time  absolutely  discredited 
by  one  party,  and  confessed  by  every  reasonable  man  to  be 
full  of  innovation  and  violence.  That  the  commons  had  no 
right  of  judicature  was  admitted  :  was  it  compatible,  many 
might  urge,  to  principles  of  reason  and  justice  that  they 
could,  merely  by  using  the  words  contempt  or  breach  of 
privilege  in  a  warrant,  deprive  the  subject  of  that  liberty 
which  the  recent  statute  of  Habeas  Corpus  had  secured 
against  the  highest  ministers  of  the  crown?  Yet  one  Thomp 
son,  a  clergyman  at  Bristol,  having  preached  some  virulent 
sermons,  wherein  he  had  traduced  the  memory  of  Hampden 
for  refusing  the  payment  of  ship-money,  and  spoken  disre 
spectfully  of  queen  Elizabeth,  as  well  as  insulted  those  who 
petitioned  for  the  sitting  of  parliament,  was  sent  for  in 
custody  of  the  sergeant  to  answer  at  the  bar  for  his  high 
misdemeanor  against  the  privileges  of  that  house  ;  and  was 
afterwards  compelled  to  find  security  for  his  forthcoming 
to  answer  to  an  impeachment  voted  against  him  on  these 
strange  charges.3  Many  others  were  brought  to  the  bar, 
not  only  for  the  crime  of  abhorrence,  but  for  alleged  mis 
demeanors  still  less  affecting  the  privileges  of  parliament, 
such  as  remissness  in  searching  for  papists.  Sir  Robert 
Cann,  of  Bristol,  was  sent  for  in  custody  of  the  sergeant- 
at-arms,  for  publicly  declaring  that  there  was  no  popish,  but 
only  a  presbyterian  plot.  A  general  panic,  mingled  with 

i  Journals,  passim.     North's  Examen,  Waller  in  Withens's  place  for  Westmin- 

377.561.  ster.     Ralph,  514. 

-'  They  went  a  little  too  far,  however,  $  Journals,  Dec.  24.  1680. 
when  they  actually  seated  sir    William 


CIIA.  II.  — 1673-85.       OXFORD   PARLIAMENT.  421 

indignation,  was  diffused  through  the  country,  till  one  Sta- 
well,  a  gentleman  of  Devonshire,  had  the  courage  to  refuse 
compliance  with  the  speaker's  warrant;  and  the  commons, 
who  hesitated  at  such  a  time  to  risk  an  appeal  to  the  or 
dinary  magistrates,  were  compelled  to  let  this  contumacy 
go  unpunished.  If,  indeed,  we  might  believe  the  journals 
of  the  house,  Stawell  was  actually  in  custody  of  the  sergeant, 
though  allowed  a  month's  time  on  account  of  sickness.  This 
was  most  probably  a  subterfuge  to  conceal  the  truth  of  the 
case.1 

These  encroachments,  under  the  name  of  privilege,  were 
exactly  in  the  spirit  of  the  long  parliament,  and  revived  too 
forcibly  the  recollection  of  that  awful  period.  It  was  com 
monly  in  men's  mouths  that  1641  was  come  about  again. 
There  appeared  indeed  for  several  months  a  very  imminent 
danger  of  civil  war.  I  have  already  mentioned  the  projects 
of  the  duke  of  York,  in  case  his  brother  had  given  way  to 
the  exclusion  bill.  There  could  be  little  reason  to  doubt  that 
many  of  the  opposite  leaders  were  ready  to  try  the  question 
by  arms.  Reresby  has  related  a  conversation  he  had  with 
lord  Halifax  immediately  after  the  rejection  of  the  bill, 
which  shows  the  expectation  of  that  able  statesman  that  the 
differences  about  the  succession  would  end  in  civil  war.'2 
The  just  abhorrence  good  men  entertain  for  such  a  calamity 
excites  their  indignation  against  those  who  conspicuously 
bring  it  on.  And,  however  desirous  some  of  the  court  might 
be  to  strengthen  the  prerogative  by  quelling  a  premature 
rebellion,  the  commons  were,  in  the  eyes  of  the  nation,  far 
more  prominent  in  accelerating  so  terrible  a  crisis.  Their 
votes  in  the  session  of  November,  in  1680,  were  marked  by 
the  most  extravagant  factiousness.3  Their  con-  oxford 
duct  in  the  short  parliament  held  at  Oxford  in  parliament. 

1  Parl.  Hist.  i.  174.  be  expelled:  30th  Dec.    They  passed  res- 

2  Moresby's  Memoirs.  106.     Lord  Hali-  olutions    against    a  number   of   persons 
fax  and  he  agreed,  he  says,  on  considera-  by  name  whom    they  suspected    to  have 
tion,  that  the  court  party  were  not  only  advised  the  king  not  to  pass  the  bill  of 
the  most  numerous,  but  the  most  active  exclusion  :  7th  Jan.  1680.     They  resolved 
and  wealthy  part  of  the  nation.  unanimously  (10th  Jan.)  that  it    is  the 

s  It   was    carried   by  219    to   95  (17th  opinion  of  this  house  that  the    cuy  of 

Nov.)  to  address  the  king  to  remove  lord  London  was   burnt  in  the  year  1666  by 

Halifax   from  his  councils  and  presence  the  papists,  designing  thereby  to    intro- 

forever.     They  resolved,  neui.  con.,  that  duce   popery   and   arbitrary  power    into 

no  member  of  that  house  should  accept  this  kingdom.     They  were  going  on  with 

of  any  office  or  place  of  profit  from  the  more  resolutions  in  the  same  spirit  when 

crown,  or  any   promise    of  one,  during  the  usher  of   the  black  rod  appeared  to 

such  time  as  he  should  continue  a  mem-  prorogue  them.     Parl.  Hist, 
her,  aud  tlaat  all  offenders  herein  should 


422  IMPEACHMENT    OF  FITZU  ARRIS.         CHAP.  XII. 

March,  1681,  served  still  more  to  alienate  the  peaceable  part 
of  the  community.  That  session  of  eight  days  was  marked 
by  the  rejection  of  a  proposal  to  vest  all  effective  power 
during  the  duke  of  York's  life  in  a  regent,  which,  as  has 
been  already  observed,  was  by  no  means  a  secure  measure, 
and  by  a  much  less  justifiable  attempt  to  screen  the  author 
of  a  treasonable  libel  from  punishment  under  the  pretext  of 
impeaching  him  at  the  bar  of  the  upper  house.  It  seems 
difficult  not  to  suspect  that  the  secret  instigation  of  Barillori, 
and  even  his  gold,  had  considerable  influence  on  some  of 
those  who  swayed  the  votes  of  this  parliament. 

Though  the  impeachment  of  Fitzharris,  to  which  I  have 
impeach-  Just  alluded,  was  in  itself  a  mere  work  of  tem- 
mentof  porary  faction,  it  brought  into  discussion  a  con- 
for^reasoIT  siderable  question  in  our  constitutional  law,  which 
constitu-  deserves  notice  both  on  account  of  its  importance 

tional.  .          . 

and  because  a  popular  writer  has  advanced  an  un 
tenable  proposition  on  the  subject.  The  commons  impeached 
Fitzharris  this  man  of  high-treason.  The  lords  voted  that 
impeached.  }ie  should  be  proceeded  against  at  common  law. 
It  was  resolved,  in  consequence,  by  the  lower  house,  "  that  it 
is  the  undoubted  right  of  the  commons  in  parliament  assem 
bled  to  impeach  before  the  lords  in  parliament  any  peer  or 
commoner  for  treason,  or  any  other  crime  or  misdemeanor : 
and  that  the  refusal  of  the  lords  to  proceed  in  parliament 
upon  such  impeachment  is  a  denial  of  justice,  and  a  violation 
of  the  constitution  of  parliament."  1  It  seems  indeed  difficult 
to  justify  the  determination  of  the  lords.  Certainly  the  dec 
laration  in  the  case  of  sir  Simon  de  Bereford,  who  having 
been  accused  by  the  king,  in  the  fourth  year  of  Edward  III., 
before  the  lords,  of  participating  in  the  treason  of  Roger 
Mortimer,  that  noble  assembly  protested,  "  with  the  assent 
of  the  king  in  full  parliament,  that,  albeit  they  had  taken 
upon  them,  as  judges  of  the  parliament,  in  the  presence  of 
the  king,  to  render  judgment,  yet  the  peers  who  then  were 
or  should  be  in  time  to  come  were  not  bound  to  render  judg 
ment  upon  others  than  peers,  nor  had  power  to  do  so  ;  and 
that  the  said  judgment  thus  rendered  should  never  be  drawn 
to  example  or  consequence  in  time  to  come,  whereby  the 
said  peers  of  the  land  might  be  charged  to  judge  others  than 
their  peers,  contrary  to  the  laws  of  the  land  ; "  certainly,  I 

1  Commons'  Journals,  March  26,  1681. 


CHA.  II.  — 1673-85.      IMPEACHMENT   OF   FITZIIARRIS.  423 

say,  this  declaration,  even  if  it  amounted  to  a  statute,  con 
cerning  which  there  has  been  some  question,1  was  not  ne 
cessarily  to  be  interpreted  as  applicable  to  impeachments  at 
the  suit  of  the  commons,  wherein  the  king  is  no  ways  a 
party.  There  were  several  precedents  in  the  reign  of  Rich 
ard  II.  of  such  impeachments  for  treason.  There  had  been 
more  than  one  in  that  of  Charles  I.  The  objection  indeed 
was  so  novel,  that  chief-justice  Scroggs,  having  been  im 
peached  for  treason  in  the  last  parliament,  though  he  applied 
to  be  admitted  to  bail,  had  never  insisted  on  so  decisive  a 
plea  to  the  jurisdiction.  And  if  the  doctrine  adopted  by  the 
lords  were  to  be  carried  to  its  just  consequences,  all  impeach 
ment  of  commoners  must  be  at  an  end  ;  for  no  distinction  is 
taken  in  the  above  declaration  as  to  Bereford  between  trea 
son  and  misdemeanor.  The  peers  had  indeed  lost  their 
ancient  privilege  in  cases  of  misdemeanor,  and  were  sub 
ject  to  the  verdict  of  a  jury  ;  but  the  principle  was  exactly 
the  same,  and  the  right  of  judging  commoners  upon  im 
peachment  for  corruption  or  embezzlement,  which  no  one 
called  in  question,  was  as  much  an  exception  from  the  or 
dinary  rules  of  law  as  in  the  more  rare  case  of  high-treason. 
It  is  hardly  necessary  to  observe  that  the  29th  section  of 
Magna  Charta,  which  establishes  the  right  of  trial  by  jury, 
is  by  its  express  language  solely  applicable  to  the  suits  of 
the  crown. 

This  very  dangerous  and  apparently  unfounded  theory, 
broached  upon  the  occasion  of  Fitzharris's  impeachment  by 
the  earl  of  Nottingham,  never  obtained  reception  ;  and  was 
rather  intimated  than  avowed  in  the  vote  of  the  lords  that  he 
should  be  proceeded  against  at  common  law.  But,  after  the 
revolution,  the  commons  having  impeached  sir  Adam  Blair 
and  some  others  of  high-treason,  a  committee  was  appointed 
to  search  for  precedents  on  this  subject ;  and,  after  full  delib 
eration,  the  house  of  lords  came  to  a  resolution  that  they 
would  proceed  on  the  impeachments.2  The  inadvertent 
position  therefore  of  Blackstone,3  that  a  commoner  cannot  be 
impeached  for  high-treason,  is  not  only  difficult  to  be  sup- 

Parl.  Hist.  ii.  54.    Lord  Hale  doubted  held  to  imply  the  presence  and  assent  of 

ether   this  were   a  statute.     But  the  the  commons. 

Iges,  in  1689,  on  being  consulted  by  2  Hatsell's  Precedents,  iv.  54,  and  Ap- 

lords,  inclined  to  think  that  it  was  pendix,  347.     State  Trials,  viii.  236,  and 

:  arguing.  I  suppose,  from  the  words  xii.  1218. 

full  parliament,"   which  have  been  a  Commentaries,  vol.  iv.  c.  19. 


424        PROSECUTION  OF  SHAFTESBURY.    CHAP.  XII. 

ported  upon  ancient  authorities,  but  contrary  to  the  latest  de 
termination  of  the  supreme  tribunal. 

No  satisfactory  elucidation  of  the  strange  libel  for  which 
Proceodin  s  FitzlmiTls  suffered  death  has  yet  been  afforded. 
against  *  There  is  much  probability  in  the  supposition  that 
it;  was  written  at  the  desire  of  some  in  the  court, 
in  order  to  cast  odium  on  their  adversaries  ;  a  very 
common  stratagem  of  unscrupulous  partisans.1  It  caused  an 
impression  unfavorable  to  the  whigs  in  the  nation.  The  court 
made  a  dexterous  use  of  that  extreme  credulity  which  has 
been  supposed  characteristic  of  the  English,  though  it  be 
longs  at  least  equally  to  every  other  people.  They  seized 
into  their  hands  the  very  engines  of  delusion  that  had  been 
turned  against  them.  Those  perjured  witnesses,  whom  Shaft- 
esbury  had  hallooed  on  through  all  the  infamy  of  the  popish 
plot,  were  now  arrayed  in  the  same  court  to  swear  treason  and 
conspiracy  against  him.2  Though  he  escaped  by  the  resolute 
ness  of  his  grand  jury,  who  refused  to  find  a  bill  of  indictment 
on  testimony  which  they  professed  themselves  to  disbelieve, 
and  which  was  probably  false,  yet  this  extraordinary  deviation 
from  the  usual  practice  did  harm  rather  than  otherwise  to  the 
general  cause  of  his  faction.  The  judges  had  taken  care 
that  the  witnesses  should  be  examined  in  open  court,  so  that 
the  jury's  partiality,  should  they  reject  such  positive  testi 
mony,  might  become  glaring.  Doubtless  it  is,  in  ordinary 
cases,  the  duty  of  a  grand  juror  to  find  a  bill  upon  the  direct 
testimony  of  witnesses,  where  they  do  not  contradict  thcm- 

1  Ralph,    564,   et  post.     State   Trials,         The  opposite  party  were  a  little  pei-- 
223,   427.     North's  Examen,   274.     1'itz-  plexed  by  the  necessity  of  refuting  testi- 
harris  was  an  Irish  papist,  who  had  evi-  mony  they  had  relied  upon.     In  a   dia- 
dently    had    interviews    with    the    king  logue,  entitled  Ignoramus  Vindicated,  it 
through  lady  Portsmouth.   One  Hawkins,  is  asked,  Why  were  Dr.  Oates  and  others 
afterwards  made  dean  of  Chichester  for  believed  against    the    papists?    and   the 
his  pains,  published  a  narrative  of  this  best  answer  the   case  admits   is   given  : 
case,  full  of  falsehoods.  "Because  his  and   their   testimony  was 

2  State  Trials,  viii.  759.     Roger  North's  backed  by  that  undeniable  evidence  of 
remark   on   this    is   worthy   of   him: —  Colemau's  papers,  Godfrey's  murder,  and 
"Having  sworn  false,  as  it  is  manifest  a  thousand  other  pregnant  circumstances, 
some   did   before    to   one    purpose,    it   is  which  makes  the  case  much  different  from 
more  likely  they  swore  true  to  the  con-  that  when  people,  of  very  suspected  credit, 
trary."    Examen,  p.  117.    And  sir  Robert  swear  the  grossest  improbabilities."    !>ut 
Sawyer's  observation  to  the  same  effect  the  same  witness,  it  is  urged,  had  late- 
is  also  worthy  of  him.    On  College's  trial,  ly    been    believed    against    the    papists. 
Oates,  in  his  examination  for  the  prison-  "What!    then,"  replies  the  advocate  of 
ers,  said  that   Turberville  had  changed  Shaftesbury  ;    -'may  not  a  man  be  very 
sides ;  Sawyer,  as  counsel  for  the  crown,  honest  and  credible  at  one  time,  and  six 
answered,    '-Dr.    Oates,  Mr.   Turberville  months  after,  by  necessity,  subornation, 
has  not  changed  sides,  you  have ;   he  is  malice,  or  twenty  ways,  become  a  noto- 
still  a   witness  for    the    king,    you    are  rious  villain .'" 

against  him."     State  Trials,  viii.  639. 


CHA.  II.  — 1073-85.  TRIAL   OF   COLLEGE.  425 

selves  or  each  other,  and  where  their  evidence  is  not  palpably 
incredible  or  contrary  to  his  own  knowledge.  The  oath  of 
that  inquest  is  forgotten,  either  where  they  render  themselves, 
as  seems  too  often  the  case,  the  mere  conduit-pipes  of  accu 
sation,  putting  a  prisoner  in  jeopardy  upon  such  slender  evi 
dence  as  does  not  call  upon  him  for  a  defence  ;  or  where,  as 
we  have  sometimes  known  in  political  causes,  they  frustrate 
the  ends  of  justice  by  rejecting  indictments  which  are  fully 
substantiated  by  testimony.  Whether  the  grand  jury  of 
London,  in  their  celebrated  ignoramus  on  the  indictment  pre 
ferred  against  Shaftesbury,  had  sufficient  grounds  for  their 
incredulity  I  will  not  pretend  to  determine.1  There  was 
probably  no  one  man  among  them  who  had  not  implicitly 
swallowed  the  tales  of  the  same  witnesses  in  the  trials  for  the 
plot.  The  nation,  however,  in  general,  less  bigoted,  or  at  least 
more  honest  in  their  bigotry,  than  those  London  citizens,  was 
staggered  by  so  many  depositions  to  a  traitorous  conspiracy, 
in  those  who  had  pretended  an  excessive  loyalty  to  the  king's 
person.2  Men  unaccustomed  to  courts  of  justice  are  natural 
ly  prone  to  give  credit  to  the  positive  oaths  of  witnesses. 
They  were  still  more  persuaded  when,  as  in  the  trial  of  Col 
lege  at  Oxford,  they  saw  this  testimony  sustained  by  the  ap 
probation  of  a  judge  (and  that  judge  a  decent  person  who 
gave  no  scandal),  and  confirmed  by  the  verdict  of  a  jury. 
The  gross  iniquity  practised  towards  the  prisoner  in  that  trial 
was  not  so  generally  bruited  as  his  conviction.3  There  is  in 

l  Roger  Xorth,    and    the    prerogative  the  crown.     State  Trials,  viii.  786.     See 

•writers  in  general,  speak  of  this  inquest  also  827  and  835. 

as  a  scandalous  piece  of  perjury  enough  2  If  we  may  believe  James  II.,  the  pop- 
to  justify  the  measures  soon  afterwards  ulace  hooted  Shaftesbury  when  he  was 
taken  against  the  city.  Hut  Ralph,  who,  sent  to  the  Tower.  Macpherson,  124; 
at  this  period  of  history,  is  very  iuipar-  Life  of  James,  688.  This  was  an  improve- 
tial,  seems  to  think  the  jury  warranted  ment  on  the  oclit  damnatos.  They  re- 
by  the  absurdity  of  the  depositions.  It  joiced,  however,  much  more,  as  he  owns, 
is  to  be  remembered  that  the  petty  juries  at  the  ignoramus,  p.  714. 
had  shown  themselves  liable  to  intimi-  3  See  College's  case  in  State  Trials, 
dation,  and  that  the  bench  was  sold  to  viii.  549  :  and  Hawles's  remarks  on  it,  723. 
the  court.  In  modern  times,  such  an  Ralph.  626.  It  is  one  of  the  worst  pieces 
ignoramus  could  hardly  ever  be  justified,  of  judicial  iniquity  that  we  find  in  the 
There  is  strong  reason  to  believe  that  the  whole  collection.  The  written  instruc- 
court  had  recourse  to  subornation  of  tions  he  had  given  to  his  counsel  before 
evidence  against  Shaftesbury  Ralph,  the  trial  were  taken  away  from  him,  in 
140,  et  post.  And  the  witnesses  were  order  to  learn  the  grounds  of  his  defence, 
chiefly  low  Irishmen,  in  whom  he  was  North  and  Jones,  the  judges  before  whom 
not  likely  to  have  placed  confidence.  As  he  was  tried,  afforded  him  no  protection, 
to  the  association  found  among  Shaftes-  But,  besides  this,  even  if  the  witnesses 
bury's  papers,  it  was  not  signed  by  him-  had  been  credible,  it  does  not  appear  to 
self,  nor,  as  I  conceive,  treasonable,  only  me  that  the  facts  amounted  to  treason, 
binding  the  associators  to  oppose  the  Roger  North  outdoes  himself  i:i  his  justi- 
duke  of  York,  in  case  of  his  coming  to  ficatkm  of  the  proceedings  ou  his  trial. 


426  TRIUMPH  OF  THE   COURT.  CHAP.  XIL 

England  a  remarkable  confidence  in  our  judicial  proceedings, 
in  part  derived  from  their  publicity,  and  partly  from  the  in 
discriminate  manner  in  which  jurors  are  usually  summoned. 
It  must  be  owned  that  the  administration  of  the  two  last 
Stuarts  was  calculated  to  show  how  easily  this  confiding  tem 
per  might  be  the  dupe  of  an  insidious  ambition. 

The  king's  declaration  of  the  reasons  that  induced  him  to 
Triumph  of  dissolve  the  last  parliament,  being  a  manifesto 
the  court.  against  the  late  majority  of  the  house  of  commons, 
was  read  in  all  churches.  The  clergy  scarcely  waited  for  this 
pretext  to  take  a  zealous  part  for  the  crown.  Every  one 
knows  their  influence  over  the  nation  in  any  cause  which 
they  make  their  own.  They  seemed  to  change  the  war 
against  liberty  into  a  crusade.  They  reechoed  from  every 
pulpit  the  strain  of  passive  obedience,  of  indefeasible  heredi 
tary  right,  of  the  divine  origin  and  patriarchal  descent  of 
monarchy.  Now  began  again  the  loyal  addresses,  more 
numerous  and  ardent  than  in  the  last  year,  which  overspread 
the  pages  of  the  London  Gazette  for  many  months.  These 
effusions  stigmatize  the  measures  of  the  three  last  parliaments, 
dwelling  especially  on  their  arbitrary  illegal  votes  against  the 
personal  liberty  of  the  subject.  Their  language  is  of  course 
not  alike  ;  yet,  amidst  all  the  ebullitions  of  triumphant  loyal 
ty,  it  is  easy  in  many  of  them  to  perceive  a  lurking  distrust 
of  the  majesty  to  which  they  did  homage,  insinuated  to  the 
reader  in  the  marked  satisfaction  with  which  they  allude  to 
the  king's  promise  of  calling  frequent  parliaments  and  of 
governing  by  the  laws.1 

The  whigs,  meantime,  so  late  in  the  heyday  of  their  pride, 
lay,  like  the  fallen  angels,  prostrate  upon  the  fiery  lake.  The 
scoffs  and  gibes  of  libellers,  who  had  trembled  before  the 
resolutions  of  the  commons,  were  showered  upon  their  heads. 
They  had  to  fear,  what  was  much  worse  than  the  insults  of 
these  vermin,  the  perjuries  of  mercenary  informers  suborned 
by  their  enemies  to  charge  false  conspiracies  against  them, 
and  sure  of  countenance  from  the  contaminated  benches  of 

Examen.  p.  587.  What  would  this  man  l  London  Gazette,  1681,  passim.  Ralph, 
have  been  in  power,  when  he  writes  thus  592,  has  spoken  too  strongly  of  their  ser 
in  a  sort  of  proscription  twenty  years  vility,  as  if  they  showed  a  disposition  to 
after  the  revolution !  But  in  justice  it  give  up  altogether  every  right  and  privi- 
should  be  observed  that  his  portraits  of  lege  to  the  crown.  This  may  be  true  in 
North  and  Jones  (id.  512  and  517)  are  a  very  few  instances,  but  is  by  no  means 
excellent  specimens  of  his  inimitable  tal-  their  general  tenor.  They  are  exactly 
ent  for  Dutch  painting.  high-tory  addresses,  and  nothing  more. 


CHA.  II.  — 1673-85.      FORFEITURE   OF   CHARTERS.  427 

justice.  The  court,  with  an  artful  policy,  though  with  detest 
able  wickedness,  secured  itself  against  its  only  great  danger, 
the  suspicion  of  popery,  by  the  sacrifice  of  Plunket,  the  titu 
lar  archbishop  of  Dublin.1  The  execution  of  this  worthy  and 
innocent  person  cannot  be  said  to  have  been  extorted  from 
the  king  in  a  time  of  great  difficulty,  like  that  of  lord  Staf 
ford.  He  was  coolly  and  deliberately  permitted  to  suffer 
death,  lest  the  current  of  loyalty,  still  sensitive  and  suspicious 
upon  the  account  of  religion,  might  be  somewhat  checked  in 
its  course.  Yet  those  who  heap  the  epithets  of  merciless,  in 
human,  sanguinary,  on  the  whig  party  for  the  impeachment 
of  lord  Stafford,  in  whose  guilt  they  fully  believed,  seldom 
mention,  without  the  characteristic  distinction  of  "  good- 
natured,"  that  sovereign  who  permitted  the  execution  of 
Plunket,  of  whose  innocence  he  was  assured.2 

The  hostility  of  the  city  of  London,  and  of  several  other 
towns,  towards   the  court,  degenerating  no  doubt 
into  a  factious  and  indecent  violence,  gave  a  pre-  of  the*Ur 
text  for  the  most  dangerous   aggression  on  public  charter  of 
liberty  that  occurred  in   the  present  reign.     The  Of  other' 
power  of  the  democracy  in  that  age  resided  chiefly  Places- 

1  State  Trials,  viii.  447.     Chief-justice  In   reference   to   lord   Stafford.    I  will 
Pemberton,  by  whom  he  was  tried,  had  here  notice  that  lord  John  Russell,  in  a 
strong    prejudices    against   the    papists,  passage  deserving  very  high  praise,  has 
though  well  enough  disposed  to  serve  the  shown  rather  too   much  candor  in  cen- 
court  in  some  respects.  suring  his  ancestor  (p.  140)  on  account 

2  The  king.  James  says  in   1679,  was  of  the  support  he  gave  (if  in  fact  he  did 
convinced  of  the  falsehood  of  the  plot,  so,  for  the  evidence  seems  weak)  to  the 
"  while  the  seeming  necessity  of  his  af  objection  raised  by  the  sheriffs,  Bethell 
fairs  made  this  unfortunate  prince  —  tor  and  Cornish,  with  respect  to  the  mode  of 
so  he  may  well   be   termed  in  this  con-  Stafford's   execution.      The   king  having 
juncture  —  thiuk  he  could  not  be  safe  remitted  all  the  sentence  except  the  be- 
but  by  consenting  every  day  to  the  exe-  heading,  these  magistrates  thought  fit  to 
eutioii  of  those  he  knew  in  his  heart  to  consult  the  house  of  commons.     Hume 
be  most  innocent ;  and  as  for  that  notion  talks  of  Russell's  seconding  this   "  bar- 
of  letting  the  law  take  its  course,  it  was  barous  scruple,''  as  he  calls  it,  and  im- 
such   a  piece  of  casuistry  as   had   been  putes  it  to  faction.     But,  notwithstand- 
fatal  to  the  king  his  father,"  &c.     5*52.  ing  the  epithet,  it  is  certain  that  the  only 
If  this  was  blaniable  in  1679,  how  much  question  was  between  death  by  the  cord 
more  in  1681!  and  the  axe;    and   if  Stafford  had  been 

Temple  relates,  that,  having  objected  guilty,  as  lord  Russell  was  convinced,  of 

to  leaving  some  priests  to  the  law,  as  the  a  most  atrocious  treason,  he  could  not 

house  of  commons  had  desired  in  1679.  deserve  to  be  spared  the  more  ignomin- 

Halifax  said  he  would  tell  every  one  he  ious  punishment.     The  truth  is,  which 

was  a  papist  if  he  did  not  concur  ;  and  seems  to  have  escaped  both  these  writers, 

that  the  plot  must  be  treated  as  if  it  that,  if  the  king  could  remit  a  part  of 

were  true,  whether  it  was  so  or  not:  p.  the  sentence  upon  a  parliamentary  im- 

339  (folio  edit.).     A  vile  maxim  indeed!  peachment,  it  might  considerably  affect 

But  as   Halifax  had  never   showed  any  the  question  whether  he  could  not  grant 

want  of  candor  or  humanity,  and  voted  a    pardon,    which     the     commons    had 

lord   Stafford  not  guilty  next  year,  we  denied, 
may  doubt  whether  Temple    has  repre 
sented  this  quite  exactly. 


428  FORFEITURE  OF  CHARTERS.  CHAP.  XII. 

in  the  corporations.  These  returned,  exclusively  or  princi 
pally,  a  majority  of  the  representatives  of  the  commons.  So 
long  as  they  should  be  actuated  by  that  ardent  spirit  of  prot 
estantism  and  liberty  which  prevailed  in  the  middling  classes, 
there  was  little  prospect  of  obtaining  a  parliament  that  would 
cooperate  with  the  Stuart  scheme  of  government.  The  ad 
ministration  of  justice  was  very  much  in  the  hands  of  their 
magistrates,  especially  in  Middlesex,  where  all  juries  are 
returned  by  the  city  sheriffs.  It  was  suggested,  therefore, 
by  some  crafty  lawyers  that  a  judgment  of  forfeiture  obtained 
against  the  corporation  of  London  would  not  only  demolish  that 
citadel  of  insolent  rebels,  but  intimidate  the  rest  of  England 
by  so  striking  an  example.  True  it  was  that  no  precedent 
could  be  found  for  the  forfeiture  of  corporate  privileges. 
But  general  reasoning  was  to  serve  instead  of  precedents, 
and  there  was  a  considerable  analogy  in  the  surrenders  of 
the  abbeys  under  Henry  VIII.,  if  much  authority  could  be 
allowed  to  that  transaction.  An  information,  as  it  is  called, 
quo  warranto,  was  accordingly  brought  into  the  court  of 
king's  bench  against  the  corporation.  Two  acts  of  the 
common  council  were  alleged  as  sufficient  misdemeanors  to 
warrant  a  judgment  of  forfeiture :  one,  the  imposition  of  cer 
tain  tolls  on  goods  brought  into  the  city  markets  by  an  ordi 
nance  or  by-law  of  their  own  ;  the  other,  their  petition  to  the 
king  in  December,  1679,  for  the  sitting  of  parliament,  and 
its  publication  throughout  the  country.1  It  would  be  foreign 
to  the  purpose  of  this  work  to  inquire  whether  a  corporation 
be  in  any  case  subject  to  forfeiture,  the  affirmative  of  which 
seems  to  have  been  held  by  courts  of  justice  since  the  revo 
lution  ;  or  whether  the  exaction  of  tolls  in  their  markets,  in 
consideration  of  erecting  stalls  and  standings,  were  within 
the  competence  of  the  city  of  London  ;  or,  if  not  so,  whether 
it  were  such  an  offence  as  could  legally  incur  the  penalty  of 
a  total  forfeiture  and  disfranchisement ;  since  it  was  manifest 
that  the  crown  made  use  only  of  this  additional  pretext  in 
order  to  punish  the  corporation  for  its  address  to  the  king. 
The  language,  indeed,  of  their  petition  had  been  uncourtly, 
and  what  the  adherents  of  prerogative  would  call  insolent ; 
but  it  was  at  the  worst  rather  a  misdemeanor,  for  which  the 
persons  concerned  might  be  responsible,  than  a  breach  of 
trust  reposed  in  the  corporation.  We  are  not,  however,  so 

i  See  this  petition,  Somers  Tracts,  yiii.  144. 


CHA.  II.— 1070-85.      FORFEITURE   OF   CHARTERS.  429 

much  concerned  to  argne  the  matter  of  law  in  this  question, 
as  to  remark  the  spirit  in  which  the  attack  on  this  stronghold 
of  popular  liberty  was  conceived.  The  court  of  king's  bench 
pronounced  judgment  of  forfeiture  against  the  corporation  ; 
but  this  judgment,  at  the  request  of  the  attorney-general, 
was  only  recorded  ;  the  city  continued  in  appearance  to  pos 
sess  its  corporate  franchises,  but  upon  submission  to  certain 
regulations  :  namely,  that  no  mayor,  sheriff,  recorder,  or 
other  chief  officer,  should  be  admitted  until  approved  by  the 
king  ;  that,  in  the  event  of  his  twice  disapproving  their 
choice  of  a  mayor,  he  should  himself  nominate  a  lit  person, 
and  the  same  in  case  of  sheriffs,  without  waiting  for  a  second 
election  ;  that  the  court  of  aldermen,  with  the  king's  permis 
sion,  might  remove  any  one  of  their  body  ;  that  they  should 
have  a  negative  on  the  elections  of  common-councilmen,  and, 
in  case  of  disapproving  a  second  choice,  have  themselves  the 
nomination.  The  corporation  submitted  thus  to  purchase  the 
continued  enjoyment  of  its  estates  at  the  expense  of  its  mu 
nicipal  independence  ;  yet,  even  in  the  prostrate  condition  of 
the  whig  party,  the  question  to  admit  these  regulations  was 
carried  by  no  great  majority  in  the  common  councils.1  The 
city  was,  of  course,  absolutely  subservient  to  the  court  from 
this  time  to  the  revolution. 

After  the  fall  of  the  capital  it  was  not  to  be  expected  that 
towns  less  capable  of  defence  should  stand  out.  Informations 
quo  warranto  were  brought  against  several  corporations,  and 
a  far  greater  number  hastened  to  anticipate  the  assault  by 
voluntary  surrenders.  It  seemed  to  be  recognized  as  law  by 
the  judgment  against  London  that  any  irregularity  or  mis 
use  of  power  in  a  corporation  might  incur  a  sentence  of  for 
feiture,  and  few  could  boast  that  they  were  invulnerable  at 
every  point.  The  judges  of  assize  in  their  circuits  prosti 
tuted  their  influence  and  authority  to  forward  this  and  every 
oilier  encroachment  of  the  crown.  Jeffreys,  on  the  northern 
circuit,  in  1G84,  to  use  the  language  of  Charles  II.'s  most 
unblushing  advocate,  "  made  all  the  charters,  like  the  walls 
of  Jericho,  fall  down  before  him,  and  returned  laden  with 
surrenders,  the  spoils  of  towns.-  They  received,  instead, 
new  charters,  framing  the  constitution  of  these  municipalities 

i  State  Trials,  viii.  1039-1340.  Ralph,  division  honorable  to  the  spirit  of  the 
717.  The  majority  was  but  104  to  86  ;  a  citizens. 

a  North's  Examen,  626. 


430  PROJECTS    OF   RUSSELL   AND   SIDNEY.         CHAP.  XII. 

in  a  more  oligarchical  model,  and  reserving  to  the  crown  the 
first  appointment  of  those  who  were  to  form  the  governing 
part  of  the  corporation.  These  changes  were  gradually 
brought  about  in  the  last  three  years  of  Charles's  reign  and 
in  the  beginning  of  the  next. 

There  can  be  nothing  so  destructive  to  the  English  consti- 
Projectsof  tllti°n?  not  cven  the  introduction  of  a  military 
lord  Russell  force,  as  the  exclusion  of  the  electoral  body  from 
their  franchises.  The  people  of  this  country  are, 
by  our  laws  and  constitution,  bound  only  to  obey  a  parlia 
ment  duly  chosen ;  and  this  violation  of  charters,  in  the 
reigns  of  Charles  and  James,  appears  to  be  the  great  and 
leading  justification  of  that  event  which  drove  the  latter 
from  the  throne.  It  can  therefore  be  no  matter  of  censure, 
in  a  moral  sense,  that  some  men  of  pure  and  patriotic  virtue, 
mingled,  it  must  be  owned,  with  others  of  a  for  inferior  tem 
per,  began  to  hold  consultations  as  to  the  best  means  of 
resisting  a  government  which,  whether  to  judge  from  these 
proceedings,  or  from  the  language  of  its  partisans,  was  aim 
ing  without  disguise  at  an  arbitrary  power.  But  as  resist 
ance  to  established  authority  can  never  be  warrantable  until 
it  is  expedient,  we  could  by  no  means  approve  any  schemes 
of  insurrection  that  might  be  projected  in  1G82,  unless  we 
could  perceive  that  there  was  a  fair  chance  of  their  success. 
And  this  we  are  not  led,  by  what  we  read  of  the  spirit  of 
those  times,  to  believe.  The  tide  ran  violently  in  another 
direction  ;  the  courage  of  the  whigs  was  broken  ;  their  ad 
versaries  were  strong  in  numbers  and  in  zeal.  But  hence  it 
is  reasonable  to  infer  that  men  like  lord  Essex  and  lord  Rus 
sell,  with  so  much  to  lose  by  failure,  with  such  good  sense, 
and  such  abhorrence  of  civil  calamity,  would  not  ultimately 
have  resolved  on  the  desperate  issue  of  arms,  though  they 
might  deem  it  prudent  to  form  estimates  of  their  strength, 
and  to  knit  together  a  confederacy  which  absolute  necessity 
might  call  into  action.  It  is  beyond  doubt  that  the  supposed 
conspirators  had  debated  among  themselves  the  subject  of  an 
insurrection,  and  poised  the  chances  of  civil  Avar.  Thus 
much  the  most  jealous  lawyer,  I  presume,  will  allowr  might 
be  done,  without  risking  the  penalties  of  treason.  They  had, 
however,  gone  farther ;  and  by  concerting  measures  in  differ 
ent  places  as  \vell  as  in  Scotland,  for  a  rising,  though  contin 
gently,  and  without  any  fixed  determination  to  carry  it  into 


CHA.  II.— 1073-85.       TRIAL    OF   LORD   RUSSELL.  431 

effect,  most  probably  (if  the  whole  business  bad  been  dis 
closed  in  testimony)  laid  themselves  open  to  the  law,  accord 
ing  to  the  construction  it  has  frequently  received.  There  is 
a  considerable  difficulty,  after  all  that  has  been  written,  in 
stating  the  extent  of  their  designs  ;  but  I  may  think  we  may 
assume  that  a  wide-spreading  and  formidable  insurrection  was 
for  several  months  in  agitation.1  But  the  difficulties  and 
hazards  of  the  enterprise  had  already  caused  lord  Russell  and 
lord  Essex  to  recede  from  the  desperate  counsels  of  Shaftes- 
bury  ;  and  but  for  the  unhappy  detection  of  the  conspiracy 
and  the  perfidy  of  lord  Howard,  these  two  noble  persons, 
whose  lives  were  untimely  lost  to  their  country,  might  have 
survived  to  join  the  banner  and  support  the  throne  of  Wil 
liam.  It  is  needless  to  observe  that  the  minor  plot,  if  we 
may  use  that  epithet  in  reference  to  the  relative  dignity  of 
the  conspirators,  for  assassinating  the  king  and  the  duke  of 
York,  had  no  immediate  connection  with  the  schemes  of  Rus 
sell,  Essex,  and  Sydney.'2 

But  it  is  by  no  means  a  consequence  from  the  admission 
we  have  made  that  the  evidence  adduced  on  lord  Their  trial 
Russell's  trial  was  sufficient  to  justify  his  convic 
tion.3      It  appears  to  me   that  lord   Howard,   and  perhaps 

1  Lady  Russell's  opinion  was  that  "  it  obtained  credit  with  the  enemies  of  the 
was  no  more  than  what  her  lord  confessed,  court    that    lord  Essex  was   murdered  ; 
talk — and  it  is  possible  that  talk  going  and  some  evidence  was  brought  forward 
so  far  as  to  consider,  if  a  remedy  for  sup-  by  the  zeal    of   one  Braddon.     The   late 
posed  evils  might  be  sought,  how  it  could  editor  of  the  State  Trials  seems  a  little 
be  formed."    Life  of  Lord  llussell,  p.  26*5.  inclined  to  revive  this  report,  which  even 
It  is  riot  easy,  however,  to  talk  long  in  Harris  (Life  of  Charles,  p.  352)  does  not 
this  manner   about   the  how  of  treason  venture  to  accredit;  and  lam  surprised 
without  incurring  the  penalties  of  it.  to  find  lord  .John    Russell   observe,  '•  It 

2  See  this  business  well    discussed  by  would  be  idle,  at    the    present    time,  to 
the  acute  and  indefatigable  Ralph,  p.  722,  pretend  to  give  any  opinion  on  the  sub- 
and  by  Lord  John  Russell,  p.  253.    See  ject :  "  p.  182.     This  I  can  by  no  means 
also  State  Trials,  ix.  358,  et  post.     There  admit.     We  have,  on  the  one   side,  some 
appears  no  cause  for  doubting  the  reality  testimonies  by  children,  who  frequently 
of  what   is  called    the    Rye-house    Plot,  invent  and  persist  in  falsehoods  with  no 
The    case   against    Walcot.  id.    519,  was  conceivable  motive.     But,  on  the  other 
pretty  well  proved ;  but  his  own  confes-  hand,  we  are  to  suppose  that  Charles  H. 
sion  'completely    hanged    him    and    his  and  the  duke  of   York  caused  a  detest- 
friends  too.     His  attainder  was  reversed  able    murder    to   be  perpetrated  on  one 
after  the  revolution,  but  only  on  account  towards   whom    they   had    never   shown 
of  some  technical  errors,  not  essential  to  any  hostility,  and  in  whose  death  they 
the  merits  of  the  case.      '  had  no  interest.     Each  of  these  princes 

a  State  Trials,  ix.  577.     Lord  Essex  cut  had  faults  enough  ;  but  I  may  venture 

his  throat  in  the  Tower.      lie  was  a  man  to  say  that  they  were  totally  incapable  of 

of  the  most  excellent  qualities,  but  sub-  such  a  crime.      One  of  the  presumptive 

ject  to  constitutional  melancholy,  which  arguments   of  Braddou.  in   a   pamphlet 

overcame  his  fortitude  ;    an    event  the  published  long  afterwards,  is.  that  the 

more  to  be  deplored,  as  there   seems  to  king  and  his  brother  were  in  the  Tower 

have    been   no   possibility  of   his    being  on  the  morning  of  lord  Essex's  death.    If 

convicted.   A  suspicion,  as  is  well  known,  this  leads  to  anything,  we  are  to  believe 


432  TRIAL   OF   LORD  RUSSELL.  CHAP.  XII. 

Rumsey,  were  unwilling  witnesses ;  and  that  the  former,  as 
is  frequently  the  case  with  those  who  betray  their  friends  in 
order  to  save  their  own  lives,  divulged  no  more  than  was 
extracted  by  his  own  danger.  The  testimony  of  neither 
witness,  especially  Howard,  was  given  with  any  degree  of 
that  precision  which  is  exacted  in  modern  times  ;  and.  as  we 
now  read  the  trial,  it  is  not  probable  that  a  jury  in  later  ages 
would  have  found  a  verdict  of  guilty,  or  would  have  been 
advised  to  it  by  the  court.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  lord 
Howard  were  really  able  to  prove  more  than  he  did,  which 
I  much  suspect,  a  better-conducted  examination  wTould  prob 
ably  have  elicited  facts  unfavorable  to  the  prisoner  which 
at  present  do  not  appear.  It  may  be  doubtful  whether  any 
overt  act  of  treason  is  distinctly  proved  against  lord  Russell, 
except  his  concurrence  in  the  project  of  a  rising  at  Taunton, 
to  which  Rumsey  deposes.  But  this,  depending  on  the  oath 
of  a  single  witness,  could  not  be  sufficient  for  a  conviction. 

Pemberton,  chief-justice  of  the  common  pleas,  tried  this 
illustrious  prisoner  with  more  humanity  than  was  usually 
displayed  on  the  bench ;  but,  aware  of  his  precarious  tenure 
in  office,  he  did  not  venture  to  check  the  counsel  for  the 
crown,  Sawyer  and  Jeffreys,  permitting  them  to  give  a  great 
body  of  hearsay  evidence,  with  only  the  feeble  and  useless 
remark  that  it  did  not  affect  the  prisoner.1  Yet  he  checked 
lord  Anglesea,  when  he  offered  similar  evidence  for  the  de 
fence.  In  his  direction  to  the  jury,  it  deserves  to  be  re 
marked  that  he  by  no  means  advanced  the  general  proposi 
tion  which  better  men  have  held,  that  a  conspiracy  to  levy 
war  is  in  itself  an  overt  act  of  compassing  the  king's  death ; 
limiting  it  to  cases  where  the  king's  person  might  be  put  in 
danger,  as,  in  the  immediate  instance,  by  the  alleged  scheme 


Charles  II.,  like  the  tyrant  in  a  Grub-  1838.     For   though  this  may  imply  no 

street  tragedy,  came   to  kill  his  prisoner  more  than  his  suicide,  it  will  generally 

with  his  own  hands.     Any  man  of  ordi-  be    construed    in    another    sense.      And 

nary  understanding  (which  seems  not  to  surely  the  critical  judgment  cannot   be 

have   been  the  case  with  Mr.  Braddon)  ^satisfied     with     evidence    which     might 

must    perceive    that    the    circumstance  weigh,  as  1  have  heard  it  did,  witli  the 

tends  to  repel  suspicion  rather  than  the  pardonable  prejudices    of  a  descendant, 

contrary.     See  the  whole  of  this,  includ-  — 1845.] 

ing  Braddon's  pamphlet,  in  State  Trials,  1  State  Trials,  615.      Sawyer  told  lord 

ix.  1127.     [I  am  sorry  to  read  in  an  ar-  Russell,  when  he  applied  to  have  his  trial 

tide  of  the  Edinburgh  Heview  by  an  elo-  put  off.  that  he  would  not  have  given  the 

quent  friend,  '•  Essex  added  a  yet  sadder  king   an   hour's    notice  to  save  his  life, 

and   more  fearful    story    to   the   bloody  Id.  582.     Yet  he  could  not  pretend  that 

chronicles   of    the   Tower."     Macaulay's  the  prisoner  had  any  concern  in  the  as- 

Essays,  iii.  (J3,  and  Edinburgh  Review,  sassi  nation  plot. 


CHA.  II.  — 1673-85.      TRIAL   OF  ALGERXOX   SIDXEY.  433 

of  seizing  his  guards.1  His  language,  indeed,  as  recorded  in 
the  printed  trial,  was  such  as  might  have  produced  a  verdic* 
of  acquittal  from  a  jury  tolerably  disposed  towards  the  pris 
oner  ;  but  the  sheriffs,  North  and  Rich,  who  had  been  ille 
gally  thrust  into  office,  being  men  wholly  devoted  to  the  pre 
rogative,  had  taken  care  to  return  a  panel  in  whom  they 
could  confide.2 

The  trial  of  Algernon  Sidney,  at  which  Jeffreys,  now 
raised  to  the  post  of  chief-justice  of  the  king's  bench,  pre 
sided,  is  as  familiar  to  all  my  readers  as  that  of  lord  Russell.8 
Their  names  have  been  always  united  in  grateful  veneration 
and  sympathy.  It  is  notorious  that  Sidney's  conviction  was 
obtained  by  a  most  illegal  distortion  of  the  evidence.  Be 
sides  lord  Howard,  no  living  witness  could  be  produced  to 
the  conspiracy  for  an  insurrection  ;  and  though  Jeffreys  per 
mitted  two  others  to  prepossess  the  jury  by  a  second-hand 
story,  he  was  compelled  to  admit  that  their  testimony  could 
not  directly  affect  the  prisoner.4  The  attorney-general, 
therefore,  had  recourse  to  a  paper  found  in  his  house,  which 
was  given  in  evidence,  either  as  an  overt  act  of  treason  by 
its  own  nature,  or  as  connected  with  the  alleged  conspiracy ; 
for  though  it  was  only  in  the  latter  sense  that  it  could  be 
admissible  at  all,  yet  Jeffreys  took  care  to  insinuate,  in  his 
charge  to  the  jury,  that  the  doctrines  it  contained  were 
treasonable  in  themselves,  and  without  reference  to  other 
evidence.  In  regard  to  truth,  and  to  that  justice  which  can 
not  be  denied  to  the  worst  men  in  their  worst  actions,  I  must 
observe  that  the  common  accusation  against  the  court  in  this 
trial,  of  having  admitted  insufficient  proof  by  the  mere  com- 

1  The  act  annulling  lord  Russell's  at-  932.      These  two  men  ran  away  at  the 
taimler  recites  him  to  have  been  "  wrong-  revolution;    but  Roger  North  vindicates 
fully  convicted    by   partial  and    unjust  their  characters,  and  those  who  trust  in 
constructions  of  law."     State  Trials,  ix.  him  may  think  them  honest. 

695.     Several  pamphlets  were  published  3  State  Trials,  ix.  818. 

after  the  revolution  by  sir  Robert  Atkins  *  State  Trials,   ix.    846.     Yet  in  sum- 

and  sir  John  Hawles  against  the  conduct  ming   up    the  evidence    he   repeated   all 

of   the   court   in    this  trial,  and    by  sir  West    and    Keeling    had    thus    said    at 

Bartholomew    Shower    in    behalf    of    it.  secondhand,  without  reminding  the  jury 

These  are  in  the  State  Trials.     But  Holt,  that  it  was  not  legal  testimony.     Id.  899. 

by  laying  down  the  principle  of  construe-  It  would  be  said  by  his  advocates,  if  any 

tive  treason  in  Ashton's  case,  established  are  left,  that  these  witnesses  must  have 

forever  the  legality  of  Pember ton's  doc-  been  left  out  of  the  question,  since  there 

trine,  and  indeed  carried  it  a  good  deal  could   otherwise   have   been    no   dispute 

farther.  about  the  written  paper.     But  they  were 

2  There   seems    little    doubt    that  the  undoubtedly  intended  to  prop  up  How- 
juries  were  packed  through  a  conspiracy  ard's  evidence,  which  had  been  so  much 
of  the  sheriffs  with  Burton  and  Graham,  shaken  by  his  previous  declaration  that 
solicitors  for  the  crown.     State  Trials,  ix.  he  knew  of  no  conspiracy. 

VOL.   II.  28 


434  CHARACTER  OF   SIDNEY.  CHAP.  XII. 

parison  of  handwriting,  though  alleged,  not  only  in  most  of 
our  historians,  but  in  the  act  of  parliament  reversing  Sid 
ney's  attainder,  does  not  appear  to  be  well  founded ;  the 
testimony  to  that  feet,  unless  the  printed  trial  is  falsified  in 
an  extraordinary  degree,  being  such  as  would  be  received  at 
present.1  We  may  allow,  also,  that  the  passages  from  this 
paper,  as  laid  in  the  indictment,  containing  very  strong  as 
sertions  of  the  right  of  the  people  to  depose  an  unworthy 
king,  might  by  possibility,  if  connected  by  other  evidence 
with  the  conspiracy  itself,  have  been  admissible  as  presump 
tions  for  the  jury  to  consider  whether  they  had  been  written 
in  furtherance  of  that  design.  But  when  they  came  to  be 
read  on  the  trial  with  their  context,  though  only  with  such 
parts  of  that  as  the  attorney-general  chose  to  produce  out  of 
a  voluminous  manuscript,  it  was  clear  that  they  belonged  to 
a  theoretical  work  on  government,  long  since  perhaps  writ 
ten,  and  incapable  of  any  bearing  upon  the  other  evidence.2 
The  manifest  iniquity  of  this  sentence  upon  Algernon  Sid 
ney,  as  well  as  the  high  courage  he  displayed  throughout 
these  last  scenes  of  his  life,  have  inspired  a  sort  of  enthusi 
asm  for  his  name,  which  neither  what  we  know  of  his  story, 
nor  the  opinion  of  his  contemporaries,  seems  altogether  to 
warrant.  The  crown  of  martyrdom  should  be  suffered  per 
haps  to  exalt  every  virtue,  and  efface  every  defect,  in  pa 
triots,  as  it  has  often  done  in  saints.  In  the  faithful  mirror 
of  history  Sidney  may  lose  something  of  this  lustre.  He 
possessed  no  doubt  a  powerful,  active,  and  undaunted  mind, 


1  This  is  pointed  out,  perhaps  for  the  Hayes's  case,  State  Trials,  x.  312,  though 

first  time,  in  an  excellent  modern  law-  the   prisoner's    handwriting   to   a  letter 

book,  Phillipps's  Law  of  Evidence.     Yet  was  proved  in  the  usual  way  by  persons 

the  act  for  the  reversal  of  Sidney's  at-  who  had  seen  him  write,  yet  this  letter 

tainder   declares  in   the    preamble   that  was  also  shown  to  the  jury,  along  with 

"the   paper,  supposed  to  be  his   hand-  some  of  his  acknowledged  writing,   for 

writing,  was  not  proved  by  the  testimony  the  purpose  of  their  comparison.     [See 

of  any  one  witness  to  be  written  by  him,  also  the  trials  of  the  seven  bishops.     Id. 

but  the  jury  was  directed  to  believe  it  xii.  295.]     It  is  possible,  therefore,  that 

by  comparing  it  with  other  writings  of  the  same  may  have  been  done  on  Sid- 

the   said  Algernon."     State  Trials.  997.  ney's    trial,     though    the    circumstance 

This  does  not  appear  to  have  been  the  does  not  appear.     Jeffreys  indeed  says, 

case  ;  and  though  Jeffreys  is  said  to  have  "  Comparison  of  hands  was  allowed  for 

garbled   the   manuscript   trial   before  it  good  proof  in  Sidney's  case."     Id.  313. 

was  printed  (for  all  the  trials  at  this  time  But  I  do  not  believe  that  the  expression 

were    published     by    authority,    which  was  used  in  that  age  so  precisely  as  it  is 

makes     them     much     better    evidence  at  present  ;  and  it  is  well  known  to  law- 

against  the  judges  than  for  them),  yet  yers  that   the  rules  of  evidence  on  this 

he  can  hardly  have  substituted  so  much  subject    have   only   been  distinctly   laid 

testimony  without  its  attracting  the  no-  down  within  the  memory  of  the  present 

tice  of  Atkins  and   Hawles,  who  wrote  generation, 
after     the     revolution.       However,     in        2  gee  Harris's  Lives,  v.  347. 


CHA.  II.  — 1673-85.      PROSTITUTION  OF  JUSTICE.  430 

stored  with  extensive  reading  on  the  topics  in  which  he  de 
lighted.  But  having  proposed  one  only  object  for  his  polit 
ical  conduct,  the  establishment  of  a  republic  in  England,  his 
pride  and  inflexibility,  though  they  gave  a  dignity  to  his 
character,  rendered  his  views  narrower  and  his  temper  un 
accommodating.  It  was  evident  to  every  reasonable  man 
that  a  republican  government,  being  adverse  to  the  prepos 
sessions  of  a  great  majority  of  the  people,  could  only  be 
brought  about  and  maintained  by  the  force  of  usurpation. 
Yet  for  this  idol  of  his  speculative  hours  he  was  content  to 
sacrifice  the  liberties  of  Europe,  to  plunge  the  country  in 
civil  war,  and  even  to  stand  indebted  to  France  for  protec 
tion.  He  may  justly  be  suspected  of  having  been  the  chief 
promoter  of  the  dangerous  cabals  with  Barillon  ;  nor  could 
any  tool  of  Charles's  court  be  more  sedulous  in  representing 
the  aggressions  of  Louis  XIV.  in  the  Netherlands  as  indif 
ferent  to  our  honor  and  safety. 

Sir  Thomas  Armstrong,  who  had  fled  to  Holland  on  the 
detection  of  the  plot,  was  given  up  by  the  States.  A  sentence 
of  outlawry,  which  had  passed  against  him  in  his  absence. 
is  equivalent,  in  cases  of  treason,  to  a  conviction  of  the  crime. 
But  the  law  allows  the  space  of  one  year,  during  which  the 
party  may  surrender  himself  to  take  his  trial.  Armstrong, 
when  brought  before  the  court,  insisted  on  this  right,  and 
demanded  a  trial.  Nothing  could  be  more  evident,  in  point 
of  law,  than  that  he  was  entitled  to  it ;  but  Jeffreys,  with 
inhuman  rudeness,  treated  his  claim  as  wholly  unfounded, 
and  would  not  even  suffer  counsel  to  be  heard  in  his  behalf. 
He  was  executed  accordingly  without  trial.1  But  it  would 
be  too  prolix  to  recapitulate  all  the  instances  of  brutal  in 
justice,  or  of  cowardly  subserviency,  which  degraded  the 
English  lawyers  of  the  Stuart  period,  and  never  so  infa 
mously  as  in  these  last  years  of  Charles  II.  From  this  pros 
titution  of  the  tribunals,  from  the  intermission  of  parliaments, 
and  the  steps  taken  to  render  them  in  future  mere  puppets  of 
the  crown,  it  was  plain  that  all  constitutional  securities  were 
at  least  in  abeyance  ;  and  those  who  felt  themselves  most 
obnoxious,  or  whose  spirit  was  too  high  to  live  in  an  en 
slaved  country,  retired  to  Holland  as  an  asylum  in  which 
they  might  wait  the  occasion  of  better  prospects,  or,  at  the 
worst,  breathe  an  air  of  liberty. 

i  State  Trials,  x.  105. 


436  TORYISM  OF   THE  CLERGY.  CHAP.  XII. 

Meanwhile  the  prejudice  against  the  whig  party,  which 
had  reached  so  great  a  height  in  1681,  was  still  further 
enhanced  by  the  detection  of  the  late  conspiracy.  The 
atrocious  scheme  of  assassination  alleged  against  Walcot  and 
some  others  who  had  suffered  was  blended  by  the  arts  of 
the  court  and  clergy,  and  by  the  blundering  credulity  of  the 
gentry,  with  those  less  heinous  projects  ascribed  to  lord 
Russell  and  his  associates.1  These  projects,  if  true  in  their 
full  extent,  were  indeed  such  as  men  honestly  attached  to 
the  government  of  their  country  could  not  fail  to  disapprove. 
For  this  purpose  a  declaration  full  of  malicious  insinuations 
was  ordered  to  be  read  in  all  churches.2  It  was  generally 
commented  upon,  we  may  make  no  question,  in  one  of  those 
loyal  discourses,  which,  trampling  on  all  truth,  charity,  and 
moderation,  had  no  other  scope  than  to  inflame  the  hearers 
against  non-conforming  protestants,  and  to  throw  obloquy  on 
the  constitutional  privileges  of  the  subject. 

It  is  not  my  intention  to  censure,  in  any  strong  sense  of 
the  word,  the  Anglican  clergy  at  this  time  for  their  assertion 
High-tory  °^  absolute  non-resistance,  so  far  as  it  was  done 
principles  of  without  calumny  and  insolence  towards  those  of 
ergy'  another  way  of  thinking,  and  without  self-interested 
adulation  of  the  ruling  power.  Their  error  was  very  dan 
gerous,  and  had  nearly  proved  destructive  of  the  whole 
constitution  ;  but  it  was  one  which  had  come  down  with  high 
recommendation,  and  of  which  they  could  only  perhaps  be 
undeceived,  as  men  are  best  undeceived  of  most  errors,  by 
experience  that  it  might  hurt  themselves.  It  was  the  tenet 
of  their  homilies,  their  canons,  their  most  distinguished  di 
vines  and  casuists ;  it  had  the  apparent  sanction  of  the  leg 
islature  in  a  statute  of  the  present  reign.  Many  excellent 
men,  as  was  shown  after  the  revolution,  who  had  never  made 
use  of  this  doctrine  as  an  engine  of  faction  or  private  in 
terest,  could  not  disentangle  their  minds  from  the  arguments 
or  the  authority  on  which  it  rested.  But  by  too  great  a 
number  it  was  eagerly  brought  forward  to  serve  the  purposes 
of  arbitrary  power,  or  at  best  to  fix  the  wavering  protestant- 

i  The    grand   jury    of  Northampton-  first  families,  as  the  names  of  Montagu, 

ghire,  in  1683,  "  present  it  as  very  ex-  Langham,    &c.,    show.     Somers    Tracts, 

pedient,  and  necessary  for  securing  the  viii.  409. 

peace  of  this  country,  that  all  ill-affected  2  Ralph,   p.    768.      Harris's  Lives,   v. 

persons  may  give  security  for  the  peace  ;"  321. 
specifying  a  number  of  gentlemen  of  the 


CHA.  II.  — 1G73-85.        PASSIVE   OBEDIENCE.  437 

Ism  of  the  court  by  professions  of  unimpeachable  loyalty. 
To  this  motive,  in  fact,  we  may  trace  a  good  deal  of  the 
vehemence  with  which  the  non-resisting  principle  had  been 
originally  advanced  by  the  church  of  England  under  the 
Tudors,  and  was  continually  urged  under  the  Stuarts.  If 
we  look  at  the  tracts  and  sermons  published  by  both  parties 
after  the  restoration,  it  will  appear  manifest  that  the  Romish 
and  Anglican  churches  bade,  as  it  were,  against  each  other 
for  the  favor  of  the  two  royal  brothers.  The  one  appealed 
to  its  acknowledged  principle,  while  it  denounced  the  pre 
tensions  of  the  holy  see  to  release  subjects  from  their  alle 
giance,  and  the  bold  theories  of  popular  government  which 
Mariana  and  some  other  Jesuits  had  promulgated.  The 
other  retaliated  on  the  first  movers  of  the  Reformation,  and 
expatiated  on  the  usurpation  of  lady  Jane  Grey,  not  to  say 
Elizabeth,  and  the  republicanism  of  Knox  or  Calvin. 

From  the  era  of  the  exclusion-bill  especially,  to  the  death 
of  Charles  II.,  a  number  of  books  were  published  passive 
in  favor  of  an  indefeasible  hereditary  right  of  the  obedience. 
crown,  and  of  absolute  non-resistance.  These  were,  how 
ever,  of  two  very  different  classes.  The  authors  of  the  first, 
who  were  perhaps  the  more  numerous,  did  not  deny  the 
legal  limitations  of  monarchy.  They  admitted  that  no  one 
was  bound  to  concur  in  the  execution  of  unlawful  commands. 
Hence  the  obedience  they  deemed  indispensable  was  denomi 
nated  passive  ;  an  epithet,  which  in  modern  usage  is  little 
more  than  redundant,  but  at  that  time  made  a  sensible  dis 
tinction.  If  all  men  should  confine  themselves  to  this  line 
of  duty,  and  merely  refuse  to  become  the  instruments  of  such 
unlawful  commands,  it  was  evident  that  no  tyranny  could 
be  carried  into  effect.  If  some  should  be  wicked  enough  to 
cooperate  against  the  liberties  of  their  country,  it  would  still 
be  the  bounden  obligation  of  Christians  to  submit.  Of  this, 
which  may  be  reckoned  the  moderate  party,  the  most  emi 
nent  were  Hickes,  in  a  treatise  called  Jovian,  and  Sherlock, 
in  his  case  of  resistance  to  the  supreme  powers.1  To  this 

i  This  book  of   Sherlock,    printed  in  defensive,  against  the  king,  that  the  su- 

168-i,  is  the  most  able  treatise  on   that  preme  power  is  in  him  ;    for  he  who  is 

side.     His  proposition's,  that  "sovereign  unaccountable  and  irresistible  is  supreme, 

princes,   or   the  supreme   power  in  any  There  are  some,  he  owns,  who  contend 

nation,  in  whomsoever  placed,  is  in  all  that  the  higher  powers  mentioned  by  St. 

cases  irresistible.1'     He  infers,  from  the  Paul    meant    the    law,    and   that  when 

statute  13  Car.  2.  declaring  it  unlawful  princes  violate  the  laws  we  may  defend 

under  any  pretence   to  wage  war,  even  their  legal  authority  against  their  personal 


438 


WRITERS   IN  FAVOR  OF 


CHAP.  XII. 


also  must  have  belonged  archbishop  Bancroft,  and  the  great 
body  of  nonjuring  clergy  who  had  refused  to  read  the 
declaration  of  indulgence  under  James  II.,  and  whose  con 
duct  in  that  respect  would  be  utterly  absurd,  except  on  the 
supposition  that  there  existed  some  lawful  boundaries  of  the 
royal  authority. 

But  besides  these  men,  who  kept  some  measures  with  the 
constitution,  even    while,  by  their  slavish  tenets, 

Some  con-  ,          ,    .  ,   .  ,  ^      ,  ,,  .  .  , 

tend  for  they  laid  it  open  to  the  assaults  of  more  intrepid 
power1*6  enemies,  another  and  a  pretty  considerable  class 
of  writers  did  not  hesitate  to  avow  their  abhor 
rence  of  all  limitations  upon  arbitrary  power.  Brady  went 
back  to  the  primary  sources  of  our  history,  and  endeavored 
to  show  that  Magna  Charta,  as  well  as  every  other  constitu 
tional  law,  were  but  rebellious  encroachments  on  the  ancient 
uncontrollable  imprescriptible  prerogatives  of  the  monarchy. 
His  writings,  replete  with  learning  and  acuteness,  and  in 
some  respects  with  just  remarks,  though  often  unfair  and 
always  partial,  naturally  produced  an  effect  on  those  who 


usurpations.  He  answers  this  very  feebly. 
''  No  law  can  come  into  the  notion  and 
definition  of  supreme  and  sovereign  pow 
ers  ;  such  a  prince  is  under  the  direction, 
but  cannot  possibly  be  said  to  be  under 
the  government,  of  the  law,  because  there 
is  no  superior  power  to  take  cognizance 
of  his  breach  of  it,  and  a  law  has  no  au 
thority  to  govern  where  there  is  no  power 
to  punish :  "  p.  114.  Ci  These  men  think," 
he  says  (p.  126),  "  that  all  civil  authority 
is  founded  in  consent,  as  if  there  were  no 
natural  lord  of  the  world,  or  all  mankind 
came  free  and  independent  into  the  world. 
This  is  a  contradiction  to  what  at  other 
times  they  will  grant,  that  the  institution 
of  civil  power  and  authority  is  from  God  ; 
nnd  indeed,  if  it  be  not.  I  know  not  how 
any  prince  can  justify  the  taking  away 
the  life  of  any  man,  whatever  crime  he 
has  been  guilty  of.  For  no  man  has 
power  of  his  own  life,  and  therefore  can 
not  give  this  power  to  another ;  which 
proves  that  the  power  of  capital  punish 
ments  cannot  result  from  mere  consent, 
but  from  a  superior  authority,  which  is 
lord  of  life  and  death."  This  is  plausibly 
urged,  and  is  not  refuted  in  a  moment. 
He  next  comes  to  an  objection,  which 
eventually  he  was  compelled  to  admit, 
with  some  discredit  to  his  consistency  and 
disinterestedness.  "  '  Is  the  power  of 
victorious  rebels  and  usurpers  from  God  ? 
Did  Oliver  Cromwell  receive  his  power 
from  God  ?  then  it  seems  it  was  unlawful 


to  resist  him  too,  or  to  conspire  against 
him  ;  then  all  those  loyal  subjects  who 
refused  to  submit  to  him  when  he  had 
got  the  power  in  his  hands  were  rebels 
and  traitors.'  To  this  I  answer,  that  the 
most  prosperous  rebel  is  not  the  higher 
powers,  while  our  natural  prince,  to 
whom  we  owe  obedience  and  subjection, 
is  in  being.  And  therefore,  though  such 
men  may  get  the  power  into  their  hands 
by  God's  permission,  yet  not  by  God's 
ordinance  ;  and  lie  who  resists  them  does 
not  resist  the  ordinance  of  God,  but  the 
usurpations  of  men.  In  hereditary  king 
doms  the  king  never  dies,  but  the  same 
minute  that  the  natural  person  of  one 
king  dies,  the  crown  descends  upon  the 
next  of  blood  ;  and  therefore  he  who  re- 
belleth  against  the  father,  and  murders 
him,  continues  a  rebel  in  the  reign  of  the 
son.  which  commences  with  his  father's 
death.  It  is  otherwise,  indeed,  where 
none  can  pretend  a  greater  title  to  the 
crown  than  the  usurper,  for  there  pos 
session  of  power  seems  to  give  a  right." 
P. 127. 

Sherlock  began  to  preach  in  a  very  dif 
ferent  manner  as  soon  as  James  showed 
a  disposition  to  set  up  his  own  church. 
"It  is  no  act  of  foyalty."  he  told  the 
house  of  commons,  May  29,  1685.  to  ac 
commodate  or  compliment  away  our 
religion  and  its  legal  securities."  Good 
Advice  to  the  Pulpits. 


CHA.  II.  — 1673-85.      ABSOLUTE  MONARCHY.  439 

had  been  accustomed  to  value  the  constitution  rather  for  its 
presumed  antiquity  than  its  real  excellence.  But  the  author 
most  in  vogue  with  the  partisans  of  despotism  was  sir  Robert 
Filmer.  He  had  lived  before  the  civil  war,  but  sir  Robert 
his  posthumous  writings  came  to  light  about  this  rilmer- 
period.  They  contain  an  elaborate  vindication  of  what  was 
called  the  patriarchal  scheme  of  government,  which,  reject 
ing  with  scorn  that  original  contract  whence  human  society 
had  been  supposed  to  spring,  derives  all  legitimate  authority 
from  that  of  primogeniture,  the  next  heir  being  king  by  di 
vine  right  and  as  incapable  of  being  restrained  in  his  sov 
ereignty  as  of  being  excluded  from  it.  "  As  kingly  power," 
he  says,  "  is  by  the  law  of  God,  so  hath  it  no  inferior  power 
to  limit  it.  The  father  of  a  family  governs  by  no  other  law 
than  his  own  will,  not  by  the  laws  and  wills  of  his  sons  and 
servants."  1  "  The  direction  of  the  law  is  but  like  the  advice 
and  direction  which  the  king's  council  gives  the  king,  which 
no  man  says  is  a  law  to  the  king."  2  "  General  laws,"  he 
observes,  "made  in  parliament,  may,  upon  known  respects 
to  the  king,  by  his  authority  be  mitigated  or  suspended  upon 
causes  only  known  to  him  ;  and  by  the  coronation  oath,  he  is 
only  bound  to  observe  good  laws,  of  which  he  is  the  judge."3 
"  A  man  is  bound  to  obey  the  king's  command  against  law, 
nay,  in  some  cases,  against  divine  laws."  4  In  another  trea 
tise,  entitled  the  Anarchy  of  a  Mixed  or  Limited  Monarchy, 
he  inveighs,  with  no  kind  of  reserve  or  exception,  against 
the  regular  constitution  ;  setting  off  with  an  assumption  that 
the  parliament  of  England  was  originally  but  an  imitation  of 
the  States-general  of  France,  which  had  no  further  power 
than  to  present  requests  to  the  king.5 

These  treatises  of  Filmer  obtained  a  very  favorable  recep 
tion.  We  find  the  patriarchal  origin  of  government  frequent 
ly  mentioned  in  the  publications  of  this  time  as  an  undoubted 
truth.  Considered  with  respect  to  his  celebrity  rather  than 
his  talents,  he  was  not,  as  some  might  imagine,  too  ignoble  an 
adversary  for  Locke  to  have  combated.  Another  person,  far 
superior  to  Filmer  in  political  eminence,  undertook  at  the 
same  time  an  unequivocal  defence  of  absolute  monarchy. 
This  was  sir  George  Mackenzie,  the  famous  lord-  Sir  George 
advocate  of  Scotland.  In  his  Jus  Regium,  pub-  Mackenzie. 

i  P.  81.  2  p.  95.  greater  length,  entitled  the  Freeholder's 

3  P.  98,  100.  *  P.  100.  Grand  Inquest,  was  published  in  1679; 

5  This    treatise,   subjoined   to  one  of     but  the  Patriarcha  not  till  1685. 


440  DECREE   OF   OXFORD  UNIVERSITY.        CHAP.  XII. 

lished  in  1 684,  and  dedicated  to  the  university  of  Oxford,  he 
maintains  that  "  monarchy  in  its  nature  is  absolute,  and  con 
sequently  these  pretended  limitations  are  against  the  nature 
of  monarchy."  1  "  Whatever  proves  monarchy  to  be  an  ex 
cellent  government,  does  by  the  same  reason  prove  absolute 
monarchy  to  be  the  best  government ;  for  if  monarchy  be  to 
be  commended  because  it  prevents  divisions,  then  a  limited 
monarchy,  which  allows  the  people  a  share,  is  not  to  be  com 
mended,  because  it  occasions  them  ;  if  monarchy  be  com 
mended  because  there  is  more  expedition,  secresy,  and  other 
excellent  qualities  to  be  found  in  it,  then  absolute  monarchy 
is  to  be  commended  above  a  limited  one,  because  a  limited 
monarch  must  impart  his  secrets  to  the  people,  and  must  de 
lay  the  noblest  designs,  until  malicious  and  factious  spirits  be 
either  gained  or  overcome ;  and  the  same  analogy  of  reason 
will  hold  in  reflecting  upon  all  other  advantages  of  monarchy, 
the  examination  whereof  I  dare  trust  to  every  man's  own 
bosom."  2  We  can  hardly,  after  this,  avoid  being  astonished 
at  the  effrontery,  even  of  a  Scots  crown  lawyer,  when  we 
read  in  the  preface  to  this  very  treatise  of  Mackenzie,  "Un 
der  whom  can  we  expect  to  be  free  from  arbitrary  govern 
ment,  when  we  were  and  are  afraid  of  it  under  king  Charles 
I.  and  king  Charles  II.  ?  " 

It  was  at  this  time  that  the  university  of  Oxford  published 
their  celebrated  decree  against  pernicious  books 
t?!t"univer-  an(l  damnable  doctrines,  enumerating  as  such 
above  twenty  propositions,  which  they  anathema 
tized  as  false,  seditious,  and  impious.  The  first  of 
these  is,  that  all  civil  authority  is  derived  originally  from  the 
people  ;  the  second,  that  there  is  a  compact,  tacit  or  express, 
between  the  king  and  his  subjects :  and  others  follow  of  the 
same  description.  They  do  not  explicitly  condemn  a  limited 
monarchy,  like  Filmer,  but  evidently  adopt  his  scheme  of 
primogenitary  right,  which  is,  perhaps,  almost  incompatible 
with  it.  Nor  is  there  the  slightest  intimation  that  the  uni 
versity  extended  their  censure  to  such  praises  of  despotic 
power  as  have  been  quoted  in  the  last  pages.3  This  decree 
was  publicly  burned  by  an  order  of  the  house  of  lords  in 
1709  ;  nor  does  there  seem  to  have  been  a  single  dissent  in 
that  body  to  a  step  that  cast  such  a  stigma  on  the  university. 
But  the  disgrace  of  the  offence  was  greater  than  that  of  the 
punishment. 

l  P.  39.  2  p.  46.  z  Collier,  902.    Somers  Tracts,  viii.  420. 


CHA.  II.  — 1673-85.        RUPTURE  WITH  LOUIS.  441 

We  can  frame  no  adequate  conception  of  the  jeopardy  in 
which  our  liberties  stood  under  the  Stuarts,  especially  in  this 
particular  period,  without  attending  to  this  spirit  of  servility 
which  had  been  so  sedulously  excited.  It  seemed  as  if  Eng 
land  was  about  to  play  the  scene  which  Denmark  had  not 
long  since  exhibited,  by  a  spontaneous  surrender  of  its  con 
stitution.  And  although  this  loyalty  were  much  more  on  the 
tongue  than  in  the  heart,  as  the  next  reign  very  amply  dis 
closed,  it  served  at  least  to  deceive  the  court  into  a  belief  that 
its  future  steps  would  be  almost  without  difficulty.  It  is  un 
certain  whether  Charles  would  have  summoned  another  par 
liament.  He  either  had  the  intention,  or  professed  it  in  order 
to  obtain  money  from  France,  of  convoking  one  at  Cambridge 
in  the  autumn  of  1681.1  But  after  the  scheme  of  new-model 
ling  corporations  began  to  be  tried,  it  was  his  policy  to  wait 
the  effects  of  this  regeneration.  It  was  better  still,  in  his 
judgment,  to  dispense  with  the  commons  altogether.  The 
period  fixed  by  law  had  elapsed  nearly  twelve  months  before 
his  death  ;  and  we  have  no  evidence  that  a  new  parliament 
was  in  contemplation.  But  Louis,  on  the  other  hand,  having 
discontinued  his  annual  subsidy  to  the  king  in  1G84,  after 
gaining  Strasburg  and  Luxemburg  by  his  con-  ConnectioQ 
nivance,  or  rather  cooperation,2  it  would  not  have  with  Louis 
been  easy  to  avoid  a  recurrence  to  the  only  lawr-  br 
ful  source  of  revenue.  The  king  of  France,  it  should  be 
observed,  behaved  towards  Charles  as  men  usually  treat  the 
low  tools  by  whose  corruption  they  have  obtained  any  end. 
During  the  whole  course  of  their  long  •  negotiations,  Louis, 
though  never  the  dupe  of  our  wretched  monarch,  was  com 
pelled  to  endure  his  shuffling  evasions,  and  pay  dearly  for  his 
base  compliances.  But  when  he  saw  himself  no  longer  in 
need  of  them,  it  seems  to  have  been  in  revenge  that  he  per 
mitted  the  publication  of  the  secret  treaty  of  1670,  and  with- 

l  Dalrymple,    Appendix,    8.      Life   of  this  he  offered  his  arbitration,    and  on 

James,  691.     He  pretended  to  come  into  Spain's    refusal    laid   the   fault  on   her, 

a  proposal  of  the  Dutch  for  an  alliance  though  already  bribed  to  decide. in  favor 

•with  Spain  and  the  empire  against  the  of  France.     Lord  Rochester  was  a  party 

fresh  encroachments  of  France,   and   to  in  all  these  base  transactions.     The  ac- 

call  a  parliament  for  that  purpose,  but  quisition  of  Luxemburg  and   Strasburg 

with  no  sincere  intention,  as  he  assured  was  of  the  utmost  importance  to  Louis, 

Barillon.      ''Je    n'ai    aucune    intention  as  they  gave  him  a  predominating  infiu- 

d 'assembler  le  parlement ;    ces  sont  des  ence    over    the    four    Rhenish    electors, 

diables  qui  veulent  ma  ruine."     Dalryni-  through  whom  he  hoped  to  procure  the 

pie,  15.  election  of  the  dauphin  as  king  of  the 

-'  He  took  100,000  livres  for  allowing  Romans.    Id.  36. 
the   French   to   seize   Luxemburg  ;  after 


442 


DEATH   OF   CHARLES   II. 


CHAP.  XII. 


drew  his  pecuniary  aid.  Charles  deeply  resented  both  these 
marks  of  desertion  in  his  ally.  In  addition  to  them,  he  dis 
covered  the  intrigues  of  the  French  ambassadors  with  his 
malecontent  commons.  He  perceived,  also,  that  by  bringing 
home  the  duke  of  York  from  Scotland,  and  restoring  him,  in 
defiance  of  the  test-act,  to  the  privy  council,  he  had  made  the 
presumptive  heir  of  the  throne,  possessed  as  he  was  of  su 
perior  steadiness  and  attention,  too  near  a  rival  to  himself. 
These  reflections  appear  to  have  depressed  his  mind  in  the 
latter  months  of  his  life,  and  to  have  produced  that  remark 
able  private  reconciliation  with  the  duke  of  Monmouth, 
through  the  influence  of  lord  Halifax,  which,  had  he  lived, 
King's  would  very  probably  have  displayed  one  more 

revolution  in  the  uncertain  policy  of  this  reign.1 
But  a  death,  so  sudden  and  inopportune  as  to  excite  suspic 
ions  of  poison  in  some  most  nearly  connected  with  him,  gave 
a  more  decisive  character  to  the  system  of  government.2 


1  Dalryrnple,   Appendix,    74.     Burnet. 
Mazure,  Hist,  de  la  Revolution  de  1688, 
i.   340,   372.      This  is  confirmed  by,  or 
rather  confirms,   the  very  curious  notes 
found  in  the  duke  of  Monmouth's  pocket- 
book  when  he  was  taken  after  the  battle 
of  Sedgemoor,  and  published  in  the  ap 
pendix  to  Welwood's  Memoirs.     Though 
we  should  rather  see  more  external  evi 
dence  of  their  authenticity  than,  so  far 
as  I  know,  has  been  produced,  they  have 
great  marks  of  it  in  themselves;    and  it 
it  is  not  impossible  that,  after  the  revolu 
tion,  Welwood  may  have  obtained  them 
from  the  Secretary  of  State's  Office. 

2  It  is  mentioned  by  Mr.  Fox,  as  a  tra 
dition  in  the  duke  of  Richmond's  family, 
that  the  duchess  of  Portsmouth  believed 
Charles  II.  to  have  been  poisoned.     This 
I  find  confirmed  in  a  letter  read  on  the 
trial  of  Francis  Francia,  indicted  for  trea 


son  in  1715.  "The  duchess  of  Ports 
mouth,  who  is  at  present  here,  gives  a 
great  deal  of  offence,  as  I  am  informed,  by 
pretending  to  prove  that  the  late  king 
James  had  poisoned  his  brother  Charles  ; 
it  was  not  expected  that  after  so  many 
years'  retirement  in  France  she  should 
come  hither  to  revive  that  vulgar  report 
which  at  so  critical  a  time  cannot  be  for 
any  good  purpose.''  State  Trials,  xv. 
948.  It  is  almost  needless  to  say  that 
the  suspicion  was  wholly  unwarrantable. 
I  have  since  been  informed,  on  the  best 
authority,  that  Mr.  Fox  did  not  derive 
his  authority  from  a  tradition  in  the  duke 
of  Richmond's  family,  that  of  his  own 
mother,  as  his  editor  had  very  naturally 
conjectured,  but  from  his  father,  the  first 
lord  Holland,  who,  while  a  young  man 
travelling  in  France,  had  become  ac 
quainted  with  the  duchess  of  Portsmouth. 


END    OF    THE    SECOND    VOLUME. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


MAR.  10. 1966  68 


LD  21A-60m-10,'65 
(F7763slO)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


Hal lam,  a 


const itutlbnar 


M41757 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


